CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Atrial Fibrillation Burden: Moving Beyond Atrial Fibrillation as a Binary Entity: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Implantable Hemodynamic Monitoring for Heart Failure Patients Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Evolocumab in High-Risk Patients Receiving a Statin: Secondary Analysis of Patients With Low LDL Cholesterol Levels and in Those Already Receiving a Maximal-Potency Statin in a Randomized Clinical Trial Basic Biology of Oxidative Stress and the Cardiovascular System: Part 1 of a 3-Part Series The Impact of Proximal Vessel Tortuosity on the Outcomes of Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From a Contemporary Multicenter Registry High-Risk Coronary Atherosclerosis Is It the Plaque Burden, the Calcium, the Lipid, or Something Else? Frequency, Regional Variation, and Predictors of Undetermined Cause of Death in Cardiometabolic Clinical Trials: A Pooled Analysis of 9259 Deaths in 9 Trials The Role of Nitroglycerin and Other Nitrogen Oxides in Cardiovascular Therapeutics

Original ResearchVolume 72, Issue 11, September 2018

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Generalizing Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment to Adults With Diabetes Mellitus

SA Berkowitz, JB Sussman, DE Jonas et al. Keywords: diabetes mellitus; generalizability; hypertension transportability

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Controversy over blood pressure (BP) treatment targets for individuals with diabetes is in part due to conflicting perspectives about generalizability of available trial data.


OBJECTIVES - The authors sought to estimate how results from the largest clinical trial of intensive BP treatment among adults with diabetes would generalize to the U.S. population.

METHODS - The authors used transportability methods to reweight individual patient data from the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) BP trial (N = 4,507) of intensive (goal systolic BP <120 mm Hg) versus standard (goal systolic BP <140 mm Hg) treatment to better represent the demographic and clinical risk factors of the U.S. population of adults with diabetes (data from NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] 2005 to 2014, n = 1,943). The primary outcome was the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Analysis used weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models with robust standard errors.

RESULTS - The ACCORD BP sample had less racial/ethnic diversity and more elevated cardiovascular risk factors than the NHANES participants. Weighted results significantly favored intensive BP treatment, unlike unweighted results (hazard ratio for primary outcome in intensive versus standard treatment in weighted analyses: 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.91; in unweighted analyses: hazard ratio: 0.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.07). Over 5 years, the weighted results estimate a number needed to treat of 34, and number needed to harm of 55.

CONCLUSIONS - After reweighting to better reflect the U.S. adult population with diabetes, intensive BP therapy was associated with significantly lower risk for cardiovascular events. However, data were limited among racial/ethnic minorities and those with lower cardiovascular risk.