PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 26, 2022Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism9 citations

Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering in patients with diabetes: A pooled analysis of the STEP and ACCORD‐BP randomized trials

View Full Paper
RYRuixue YangJBJingjing BaiZFZhou Fang

Key Result

Intensive systolic blood pressure lowering (110 to <130 mmHg) reduced the composite of stroke, major CAD, heart failure, and CV death compared to standard targets (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.64-0.93).

Study Design

Type

Meta-Analysis (n=3,989)

Randomization

Randomized

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does intensive systolic blood pressure lowering reduce cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive patients with diabetes?

P
Population
3,989 hypertensive patients with diabetes (pooled from STEP diabetes subgroup [n=1,627] and ACCORD-BP standard glycaemic group [n=2,362])
I
Intervention
Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering (target 110 to <130 mmHg)
C
Comparator
Standard systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering (target 130 to <150 mmHg)
O
Outcome
Composite of stroke, major coronary artery disease (myocardial infarction and unstable angina), heart failure, and cardiovascular deathcomposite

Intensive systolic blood pressure lowering (target 110 to <130 mmHg) significantly reduces cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients with diabetes compared to a standard target (130 to <150 mmHg).

Main Result

Effect estimate: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.64-0.93)

Absolute Event Rate: 9.7% vs 12.3%

Abstract

AIM: To determine whether intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering can benefit hypertensive patients with diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of individual patient data from two randomized trials to compare intensive and standard SBP targets in hypertensive patients with diabetes (STEP diabetes subgroup and ACCORD-BP standard glycaemic group, n = 1627 and n = 2362, respectively). We defined a modified primary outcome as a composite of stroke, major coronary artery disease (myocardial infarction and unstable angina), heart failure, and cardiovascular death. The secondary outcomes were individual components of the primary outcome and death from any cause. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in the main analysis. We conducted one-stage mixed-effect models and two-stage analyses as sensitivity and supplementary analyses to verify the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: A total of 3989 patients were randomized to undergo intensive (n = 1984) or standard SBP treatment (n = 2005). After a median follow-up of 3.83 years, the primary outcome occurred in 193/1984 patients in the intensive group and in 247/2005 patients in the standard group (hazard ratio HR 0.77, 95% confidence interval CI 0.64-0.93). The incidence rates for secondary outcomes were lower in the intensive group than in the standard group, but were not significantly different, except for stroke (intensive vs. standard: 32/1984 vs. 58/2005; HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36-0.86). These results remained consistent in the additional sensitivity and supplementary analyses. CONCLUSIONS: An intensive SBP-lowering target of 110 to <130 mmHg reduces the cardiovascular outcomes compared with a standard SBP-lowering target of 130 to <150 mmHg. The findings of this study support the favourable effects of intensive SBP lowering in hypertensive patients with diabetes.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Yang et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in Hypertensive patients with diabetes (n=3,989). Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering vs. Standard SBP-lowering target of 130 to <150 mmHg was evaluated on Composite of stroke, major coronary artery disease (myocardial infarction and unstable angina), heart failure, and cardiovascular death (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.93). Intensive systolic blood pressure lowering (110 to <130 mmHg) reduced the composite of stroke, major CAD, heart failure, and CV death compared to standard targets (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.64-0.93).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1c156ad54006be995f851chttps://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14927
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper