Benefit and harm of intensive blood pressure treatment: Derivation and validation of risk models using data from the SPRINT and ACCORD trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Basu S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5644999 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Benefit and harm of intensive blood pressure treatment: Derivation and validation of risk models using data from the SPRINT and ACCORD trials.
Basu Sanjay S Sussman Jeremy B JB Rigdon Joseph J Steimle Lauren L Denton Brian T BT Hayward Rodney A RA
PLoS medicine 20171017 10
<h4>Background</h4>Intensive blood pressure (BP) treatment can avert cardiovascular disease (CVD) events but can cause some serious adverse events. We sought to develop and validate risk models for predicting absolute risk difference (increased risk or decreased risk) for CVD events and serious adverse events from intensive BP therapy. A secondary aim was to test if the statistical method of elastic net regularization would improve the estimation of risk models for predicting absolute risk diffe ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIntensive blood pressure lowering prevents major adverse cardiovascular events, but some patients experience serious adverse events. Examining benefit-harm profiles may be more informative than analyzing major adverse cardiovascular events and serious adverse events separately.MethodsWe analyzed data from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (n = 9361), comparing intensive treatment (systolic blood pressure target <120 mm Hg) to standard treatment (<140 mm Hg). A 4-year hierarchical outcome profile was defined for each participant: 1) alive with neither major adverse cardiovascular events nor serious adverse events (most desirable); 2) alive with serious adverse events only; 3) alive with major adverse cardiovascular events only; 4) alive with both events; and 5) deceased (least desirable). We compared 4-year outcome profiles between the treatment groups in the entire population and by frailty subgroups defined using physical frailty phenotype (non-frail, pre-frail, and frail).ResultsThe proportion who died were lower with intensive treatment than standard treatment (5% vs 6%). A higher proportion of the intensive treatment group was alive with serious adverse events and no major adverse cardiovascular events (36% vs 33%), and a lower proportion were alive with both events (6% vs 5%) than the standard treatment group. The outcome profiles were more favorable among those with physical frailty phenotype who were treated with intensive treatment vs standard treatment, but outcome profiles were similar between the treatment groups among non-frail or pre-frail participants.ConclusionsThis post hoc proof-of-concept analysis demonstrates the utility of the outcome profile analysis that simultaneously examines the benefit and harm of the treatment.
| S-EPMC10842410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFew studies have answered the guiding significance of individual components of the Framingham risk score (FRS) to the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) after antihypertensive treatment. This study on the systolic blood pressure intervention trial (SPRINT) and the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes blood pressure trial (ACCORD-BP) aimed to reveal previously undetected association patterns between individual components of the FRS and heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTEs) of intensive blood pressure control.MethodsA self-organizing map (SOM) methodology was applied to identify CVD-risk-specific subgroups in the SPRINT (n = 8,773), and the trained SOM was utilized directly in 4,495 patients from the ACCORD. The primary endpoints were myocardial infarction (MI), non-myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome (non-MI ACS), stroke, heart failure (HF), death from CVD causes, and a primary composite cardiovascular outcome. Cox proportional hazards models were then used to explore the potential heterogeneous response to intensive SBP control.ResultsWe identified four SOM-based subgroups with distinct individual components of FRS profiles and the CVD risk. For individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the ACCORD or without diabetes in the SPRINT, subgroup I characterized by male with the lowest concentrations for total cholesterol (TC) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol measures, experienced the highest risk for major CVD. Conversely, subgroup III characterized by a female with the highest values for these measures represented as the lowest CVD risk. Furthermore, subgroup II, with the highest systolic blood pressure (SBP) and no antihypertensive agent use at baseline, had a significantly greater frequency of non-MI ACS under intensive BP control, the number needed to harm (NNH) was 84.24 to cause 1 non-MI ACS [absolute risk reduction (ARR) = -1.19%; 95% CI: -2.08, -0.29%] in the SPRINT [hazard ratio (HR) = 3.62; 95% CI: 1.33, 9.81; P = 0.012], and the NNH of was 43.19 to cause 1 non-MI ACS (ARR = -2.32%; 95% CI: -4.63, 0.00%) in the ACCORD (HR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.01-3.25; P = 0.046). Finally, subgroup IV characterized by mostly younger patients with antihypertensive medication use and smoking history represented the lowest risk for stroke, HF, and relatively low risk for death from CVD causes and primary composite CVD outcome in SPRINT, however, except stroke, a low risk for others were not observed in ACCORD.ConclusionSimilar findings in patients with hypertensive with T2DM or without diabetes by multivariate subgrouping suggested that the individual components of the FRS could enrich or improve CVD risk assessment. Further research was required to clarify the potential mechanism.
| S-EPMC8850629 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10199351 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7240348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lowering blood pressure (BP) can lead to an initial decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). However, there is debate how much eGFR decline is acceptable. We performed a post hoc analysis of ACCORD-BP (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes-Blood Pressure) and SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), which randomized patients to intensive or standard systolic BP-targets. We determined the relation between initial decline in mean arterial pressure and eGFR. Subsequently, we stratified patients to BP-target and initial eGFR decrease and assessed the relation with annual eGFR decline after 1 year. A total of 13 266 patients with 41 126 eGFR measurements were analyzed. Up to 10 mm Hg of BP-lowering, eGFR did not change. Hereafter, there was a linear decrease of 3.4% eGFR (95% CI, 2.9%-3.9%) per 10 mm Hg mean arterial pressure decrease. The observed eGFR decline based on 95% of the subjects varied from 26% after 0 mm Hg to 46% with a 40 mm Hg mean arterial pressure decrease. There was no difference in eGFR slope (P=0.37) according to initial eGFR decline and BP-target, with a decrease of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.09-1.39), 1.20 (95% CI, 0.97-1.43), and 1.14 (95% CI, 0.77-1.50) in the 5%, 5% to 20%, and >20% stratum during intensive and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.81-1.09), 1.23 (95% CI, 0.97-1.49), and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.65-1.69) mL/minute per 1.73 m2 per year during standard treatment. In patients at high cardiovascular risk with and without diabetes mellitus, we found no association between initial eGFR and annual eGFR decline during BP-lowering treatment. Our results support that an eGFR decrease up to 20% after BP lowering can be accepted and suggest that the limit can be extended up to 46% depending on the achieved BP reduction. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00000620, NCT01206062.
| S-EPMC7176351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We evaluated the association between orthostatic hypertension and cardiovascular outcomes and the effect of intensive blood pressure (BP) control on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with orthostatic hypertension. Post hoc analyses of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) data were conducted; orthostatic hypertension was defined as increase in systolic BP≥20 mm Hg or increase in diastolic BP≥10 mm Hg with standing. Of 9329 participants, 1986 (21.2%) had orthostatic hypertension at baseline. Within the intensive treatment group, participants with orthostatic hypertension were at higher risk of developing the composite cardiovascular outcome (hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.1-1.87], P=0.007) compared with participants without orthostatic hypertension. Within the standard treatment group, there were no significant differences in cardiovascular outcome between participants with and without orthostatic hypertension. In participants with orthostatic hypertension, there was no statistically significant difference in risk of the composite cardiovascular outcome between the intensive and the standard BP treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.78-1.47], P=0.68). In participants without orthostatic hypertension at baseline, the intensive treatment group was associated with a lower risk of the composite cardiovascular outcome (hazard ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.56-0.79], P<0.0001). Orthostatic hypertension was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes in the intensive and not in the standard treatment group; intensive treatment of BP did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular outcomes compared with standard treatment in patients with orthostatic hypertension. These post hoc analyses are hypothesis generating and will need to be confirmed in future studies.
| S-EPMC8830850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to develop prognostic models for predicting the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 and compare their performance with the Respiratory rate-OXygenation (ROX) index.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using data collected between March 2020 and August 2021 at three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. ICU patients aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were screened. The exclusion criteria were patients who received IMV within the first 24 h of ICU admission, pregnancy, clinical decision for minimal end-of-life care and missing primary outcome data. Clinical and laboratory variables were collected. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to select predictor variables. Models were based on the lowest Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) and lowest AIC with significant p values. Assessment of predictive performance was done for discrimination and calibration. Areas under the curves (AUC)s were compared using DeLong's algorithm. Models were validated externally using an international database.ResultsOf 656 patients screened, 346 patients were included; 155 required IMV (44.8%), 191 did not (55.2%), and 207 patients were male (59.8%). According to the lowest AIC, arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, heart rate, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), temperature, respiratory effort signals, and leukocytes were identified as predictors of IMV at hospital admission. According to AIC with significant p values, SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals were the best predictors of IMV; odds ratios (95% confidence interval): 1.46 (1.07-2.05), 0.81 (0.72-0.90), 9.13 (3.29-28.67), respectively. The ROX index at admission was lower in the IMV group than in the non-IMV group (7.3 [5.2-9.8] versus 9.6 [6.8-12.9], p < 0.001, respectively). In the external validation population, the area under the curve (AUC) of the ROX index was 0.683 (accuracy 63%), the AIC model showed an AUC of 0.703 (accuracy 69%), and the lowest AIC model with significant p values had an AUC of 0.725 (accuracy 79%).ConclusionsIn the development population of ICU patients with COVID-19, SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals predicted the need for IMV better than the ROX index. In the external validation population, although the AUCs did not differ significantly, the accuracy was higher when using SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals compared to the ROX index. This suggests that these variables may be more useful in predicting the need for IMV in ICU patients with COVID-19.ClinicaltrialsGov identifierNCT05663528.
| S-EPMC11339005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:[Figure: see text].
| S-EPMC8035296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To investigate the optimal blood pressure (BP) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), we conducted subgroup analysis using SPRINT data. The study sample included 1206 participants with CAD (of whom 692 underwent coronary revascularization) and 8127 participants without CAD. Participants were randomized into two groups (systolic BP target of 140 mm Hg vs. 120 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events. After a median follow-up of 3.9 years, the hazard ratios (HRs) for the primary outcome were 0.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.79) and 1.05 (95% CI 0.76-1.46) among those in the non-CAD and CAD subgroups, respectively (P value for interaction 0.02). Intensive BP treatment was a protective factor for all-cause death (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.96) in the CAD subgroup, compared with standard BP treatment. The HRs (95% CI) for stroke were 3.57 (1.17-10.85) and 1.03 (0.29-3.62) among those in the coronary revascularization and non-revascularization subgroups, respectively (P value for interaction 0.13). For safety events, intensive BP treatment increased the risk of hypotension (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.06-3.79) and electrolyte abnormalities (HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.25-4.56) in the CAD subgroup, while the risk of serious adverse events did not increase (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88-1.20). These results suggest that positive benefits from intensive BP treatment might be attenuated in patients with CAD who are under better secondary prevention. The risk of stroke might increase at the systolic BP target of 120 mm Hg in case of coronary revascularization, although the confidence interval was wide.
| S-EPMC8766284 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAmong individuals with hypertension and low diastolic blood pressure (DBP), the optimal BP target remains controversial due to concerns that BP lowering may reduce coronary perfusion. We determined the impact of intensive BP control among individuals with elevated systolic BP who have low DBP and elevated hs-cTnT (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T) levels.Methods and resultsA total of 8828 participants in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) were stratified by baseline DBP. Those with low DBP (<70 mm Hg) were further stratified by elevated hs-cTnT (≥14 ng/L) at baseline. The effects of intensive versus standard BP lowering on a cardiovascular disease composite end point, all-cause death, and 1-year change in hs-cTnT were determined. The combination of low DBP/high hs-cTnT was independently associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular disease and all-cause death, as well as greater 1-year increases in hs-cTnT, compared with DBP ≥70 mm Hg. However, randomization to intensive versus standard BP lowering led to similar reductions in cardiovascular disease risk among individuals with low DBP/high hs-cTnT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.57-1.19]), low DBP/low hs-cTnT (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.29-0.79]), and DBP ≥70 mm Hg (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.60-0.89]; P for interaction=0.20). Intensive BP lowering also led to a reduction in all-cause death that was similar across groups (P for interaction=0.57).ConclusionsIn this nonprespecified subgroup analysis of SPRINT, individuals with low DBP and elevated hs-cTnT, low DBP and nonelevated hs-cTnT, and DBP ≥70 mm Hg derived similar cardiovascular disease and mortality benefits from intensive BP lowering. These findings warrant confirmation in other studies.
| S-EPMC11010028 | biostudies-literature