Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Control in SPRINT-Eligible Participants of ACCORD-BP.

Pubmed ID: 28947569

Journal: Diabetes care

Publication Date: Dec. 1, 2017

Affiliation: Department of Pharmacotherapy and Outcomes Science, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA bvantassell@vcu.edu.

MeSH Terms: Humans, Male, Female, Aged, Risk Factors, Middle Aged, Hypertension, Proportional Hazards Models, Heart Failure, Treatment Outcome, Blood Pressure, Stroke, Myocardial Infarction, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Antihypertensive Agents

Authors: Buckley LF, Dixon DL, Wohlford GF, Wijesinghe DS, Baker WL, Van Tassell BW

Cite As: Buckley LF, Dixon DL, Wohlford GF 4th, Wijesinghe DS, Baker WL, Van Tassell BW. Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Control in SPRINT-Eligible Participants of ACCORD-BP. Diabetes Care 2017 Dec;40(12):1733-1738. Epub 2017 Sep 25.

Studies:

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the effect of intensive blood pressure (BP) control on cardiovascular outcomes in participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and additional risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a post hoc, multivariate, subgroup analysis of ACCORD-BP (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure) participants. Participants were eligible for the analysis if they were in the standard glucose control arm of ACCORD-BP and also had the additional CVD risk factors required for SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) eligibility. We used a Cox proportional hazards regression model to compare the effect of intensive versus standard BP control on CVD outcomes. The "SPRINT-eligible" ACCORD-BP participants were pooled with SPRINT participants to determine whether the effects of intensive BP control interacted with T2DM. RESULTS: The mean baseline Framingham 10-year CVD risk scores were 14.5% and 14.8%, respectively, in the intensive and standard BP control groups. The mean achieved systolic BP values were 120 and 134 mmHg in the intensive and standard BP control groups (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Intensive BP control reduced the composite of CVD death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, any revascularization, and heart failure (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.65-0.96; <i>P</i> = 0.02). Intensive BP control also reduced CVD death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke (hazard ratio 0.69; 95% CI 0.51-0.93; <i>P</i> = 0.01). Treatment-related adverse events occurred more frequently in participants receiving intensive BP control (4.1% vs. 2.1%; <i>P</i> = 0.003). The effect of intensive BP control on CVD outcomes did not differ between patients with and without T2DM (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive BP control reduced CVD outcomes in a cohort of participants with T2DM and additional CVD risk factors.