Key result
An intensive blood pressure strategy (<120 mm Hg) did not significantly increase the risk of incident diabetes mellitus compared to a standard strategy (HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.95-1.49).
Why the study?
The SPRINT trial demonstrated reduced cardiovascular outcomes, prompting this evaluation of incident diabetes mellitus with intensive versus standard blood pressure strategies.
Does an intensive blood pressure strategy (target <120 mm Hg) increase the incidence of diabetes mellitus in adults ≥50 years with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk compared to a standard strategy (<140 mm Hg)?
RCT (n=8,380)
Does an intensive blood pressure strategy (target <120 mm Hg) increase the incidence of diabetes mellitus in adults ≥50 years with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk compared to a standard strategy (<140 mm Hg)?
Hazard Ratio: 1.19 (95% CI 0.95–1.49)
Absolute Event Rate: 22.6% vs 19%
Intensive blood pressure lowering to <120 mm Hg does not significantly increase the risk of incident diabetes, though it may increase the rate of impaired fasting glucose.
Supports safety of intensive BP targets on diabetes risk; leaves open confirmation from randomized evidence.
The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) demonstrated reduced cardiovascular outcomes. We evaluated diabetes mellitus incidence in this randomized trial that compared intensive blood pressure strategy (systolic blood pressure <120 mm Hg) versus standard strategy (<140 mm Hg). Participants were ≥50 years of age, with systolic 130 to 180 mm Hg and increased cardiovascular risk. Participants were excluded if they had diabetes mellitus, polycystic kidney disease, proteinuria >1 g/d, heart failure, dementia, or stroke. Postrandomization exclusions included participants missing blood glucose or ≥126 mg/dL (6.99 mmol/L) or on hypoglycemics. The outcome was incident diabetes mellitus: fasting blood glucose ≥126 mg/dL (6.99 mmol/L), diabetes mellitus self-report, or new use of hypoglycemics. The secondary outcome was impaired fasting glucose (100-125 mg/dL [5.55-6.94 mmol/L]) among those with normoglycemia (<100 mg/dL [5.55 mmol/L]). There were 9361 participants randomized and 981 excluded, yielding 4187 and 4193 participants assigned to intensive and standard strategies. There were 299 incident diabetes mellitus events (2.3% per year) for intensive and 251 events (1.9% per year) for standard, rates of 22.6 (20.2-25.3) versus 19.0 (16.8-21.5) events per 1000 person-years of treatment, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.95-1.49]). Impaired fasting glucose rates were 26.4 (24.9-28.0) and 22.5 (21.1-24.1) per 100 person-years for intensive and standard strategies (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.17 [1.06-1.30]). Intensive treatment strategy was not associated with increased diabetes mellitus but was associated with more impaired fasting glucose. The risks and benefits of intensive blood pressure targets should be factored into individualized patient treatment goals. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Roumie et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk (n=8,380). Intensive blood pressure strategy vs. Standard strategy (systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg) was evaluated on Incident diabetes mellitus (fasting blood glucose ≥126 mg/dL, diabetes mellitus self-report, or new use of hypoglycemics) (adjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.95-1.49). An intensive blood pressure strategy (<120 mm Hg) did not significantly increase the risk of incident diabetes mellitus compared to a standard strategy (HR 1.19; 95% CI 0.95-1.49).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: