Intensive Blood Pressure Goals Research Articles

Association Between Self-Reported Medication Adherence and Therapeutic Inertia in Hypertension: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial).

Therapeutic inertia (TI), failure to intensify antihypertensive medication when blood pressure (BP) is above goal, remains prevalent in hypertension management. The degree to which self-reported antihypertensive adherence is associated with TI with intensive BP goals remains unclear. Cross-sectional analysis was performed of the 12-month visit of participants in the intensive arm of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), which randomized adults to intensive (<120 mm Hg) versus standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic BP goals. TI was defined as no increase in antihypertensive regimen intensity score, which incorporates medication number and dose, when systolic BP is ≥120 mm Hg. Self-reported adherence was assessed using the 8-Item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and categorized as low (MMAS-8 score <6), medium (MMAS-8 score 6 to <8), and high (MMAS-8 score 8). Poisson regressions estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs for TI associated with MMAS-8. Among 1009 intensive arm participants with systolic BP >120 mm Hg at the 12-month visit (mean age, 69.6 years; 35.2% female, 28.8% non-Hispanic Black), TI occurred in 50.8% of participants. Participants with low adherence (versus high) were younger and more likely to be non-Hispanic Black or smokers. The prevalence of TI among patients with low, medium, and high adherence was 45.0%, 53.5%, and 50.4%, respectively. After adjustment, neither low nor medium adherence (versus high) were associated with TI (PR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.87-1.42]; PR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.84-1.38], respectively). Although clinician uncertainty about adherence is often cited as a reason for why antihypertensive intensification is withheld when above BP goals, we observed no evidence of an association between self-reported adherence and TI.

Abstract 13622: Association Between Self-Reported Medication Adherence and Therapeutic Inertia in Hypertension: A Secondary Analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)

Introduction: Therapeutic inertia (TI), the failure to intensify antihypertensive medication when blood pressure (BP) is above goal, remains highly prevalent in hypertension management. The degree to which self-reported antihypertensive adherence is associated with TI when targeting intensive BP goals remains unclear. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of the 12-month visit of participants randomized to the intensive systolic BP (SBP) arm of the SBP Intervention Trial (SPRINT), which randomized adults at high cardiovascular disease risk to an intensive (&lt;120 mm Hg) vs. standard (&lt;140 mm Hg) SBP treatment group. TI was defined as no change in the antihypertensive medication regimen intensity score, which incorporates the medication number and dose, when the SBP &gt;120 mm Hg. Self-reported medication adherence was assessed using the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and categorized as low (&lt;6), medium (6 to &lt;8), and high (8). Poisson regression models with robust error variance estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for TI associated with MMAS-8 category. Results: Among 1,009 intensive arm participants with SBP &gt;120 mm Hg at the 12-month visit (mean age 69.6 years, 35.2% female, 28.8% non-Hispanic Black), TI occurred in 50.8% of participants. Participants with low self-reported adherence (vs. high) were younger and more likely to be non-Hispanic Black or current smokers. The prevalence of TI among low, medium, and high adherence was 45.0%, 53.5%, and 50.4%, respectively. After adjustment, neither low nor medium adherence (vs. high) were associated with TI (PR 1.11; 95% CI 0.87,1.42, PR 1.08; 95% CI 0.84,1.38, respectively). Conclusion: Although clinician uncertainty about medication adherence is often cited as a reason for why antihypertensive intensification is withheld when the BP is above goal, we observed no evidence of an association between self-reported adherence to antihypertensive medication and TI.

PSUN158 INTENSIVE VS. CONVENTIONAL BLOOD PRESSURE GOALS IN OLDER PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Abstract Background Hypertension is a major cardiovascular risk factor that affects over 50% of individuals with type 2 diabetes. Lowering blood pressure to reduce the risk of micro- and macrovascular complications of diabetes is a strong recommendation advocated by contemporary clinical practice guidelines, however, proposed goals for older patients with diabetes are heterogeneous and rely on indirect evidence as they are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials. Herein, the optimal blood pressure goal and its associated risks remain uncertain in this population. Objective To assess the effect of intensive vs conventional blood pressure goals on patient important outcomes in older adults with type 2 diabetes. Methods A comprehensive search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from database inception to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials comparing intensive vs conventional blood pressure goals in adults over 60 years of age with type 2 diabetes were included. Screening and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. Modified Mantel-Haenszel meta-analyses were conducted to estimate odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs). (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019126078) Results Seven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria.A 19% risk reduction (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95; I2= 8%; p= 0.35) in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and 37% risk reduction (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.79; I2= 0%; p= 0.56) in the occurrence of fatal or non-fatal stroke was documented in the intensive treatment group. There were no differences in the occurrence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and peripheral vascular disease. Data regarding treatment adverse effects and microvascular outcomes were scarcely reported among included studies. Conclusion In summary, our analysis provides evidence that intensive blood pressure goals in older patients with diabetes are associated with a lower risk of stroke and MACE. Nevertheless, data are very scarce regarding microvascular diabetes outcomes and treatment safety. Given that an intensive approach would increase the number of medications, cost, adverse events and probably decrease adherence, treatment of hypertension in this population should be conducted with a shared decision making approach that makes sense from an intellectual, emotional, and practical basis. Presentation: Sunday, June 12, 2022 12:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.

Abstract P220: Effects Of Orthostatic Hypotension On Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment With Respect To All-cause Mortality: An Individual-level Meta-analysis

Background: In a recent individual level meta-analysis, intensive versus standard blood pressure (BP) treatment reduced participants’ risk of orthostatic hypotension (OH). Whether OH modified the relationship between intensive treatment and risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or death is unknown. Methods: We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis, updating a previous systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases through May 13, 2022, which included randomized trials of BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) on CVD or death. CVD events were adjudicated and included coronary heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure. OH was defined as a drop in SBP ≥20 mmHg and/or DBP ≥10 mmHg after changing positions from sitting to standing. Ultimately, 8 trials were identified with OH and outcomes data. Effects were examined overall and by trial type (BP goal or active agent), using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age and sex. Results: There were 27,974 participants followed for median of 4 years (mean age 69.5±10.7 years; 48.5% female; 8.6% with OH). Baseline OH was associated with a higher risk of CVD or death (HR 1.24; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.39). More intensive BP treatment or active therapy lowered risk of CVD or death among those without OH at baseline (HR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.88) and with OH at baseline (HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.98). Effects did not differ by baseline OH ( P -interaction 0.78) ( Table ). Conclusion: While baseline OH was associated with CVD or death, it did not increase the risk of CVD or death from intensive treatment. OH prior to the initiation of intensive therapy should not be viewed as a reason to avoid BP treatment.

Intensive vs. conventional blood pressure goals in older patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Assess the effect of intensive vs conventional blood pressure goals on patient-important outcomes in older adults with type 2 diabetes. A comprehensive search was performed using electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing intensive vs conventional blood pressure goals in adults over 60 years of age with type 2 diabetes were included. Events were evaluated using a modified Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis with Peto's method. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. Seven trials were included. A 19% risk reduction (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69-0.95; I2 = 8%; p = 0.35) in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and 37% risk reduction (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51-0.79; I2 = 0%; p = 0.56) in the occurrence of fatal or non-fatal stroke was documented in the intensive treatment group. There were no differences in the occurrence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and peripheral vascular disease. Data regarding treatment adverse effects and microvascular outcomes was scarce. Intensive blood pressure goals in older patients with diabetes were associated with a lower risk of stroke and MACE, but not with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and peripheral vascular disease.

The Diastolic Blood Pressure J-Curve in Hypertension Management: Links and Risk for Cardiovascular Disease.

Purpose of ReviewThe treatment of hypertension has changed dramatically over the last century, with recent trials informing clinical guidelines that recommend aiming for lower blood pressure (BP) targets than ever before. However, a “J”- or “U-shaped curve” in the association between diastolic BP and cardiovascular events has been observed in epidemiological studies, suggesting that both high diastolic BPs and diastolic BPs below a certain nadir are associated with higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Despite the potential for confounding and reverse causation, this association may caution against overly intensive BP lowering in some hypertensive adults who also have a low baseline diastolic BP.Recent FindingsRecent post-hoc analyses of the landmark Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) appear to contradict these J-curve concerns, finding that the benefit of more intensive BP treatment did not differ based on baseline blood pressure. Similarly, sensitivity analyses of The Strategy of Blood Pressure Intervention in the Elderly Hypertensive Patients (STEP) randomized controlled trial found that patients experienced similar benefits from an intensive BP goal, regardless of whether their diastolic BP was above or below 60 mm Hg. Finally, several Mendelian randomization analyses, which are less susceptible to confounding and reverse causation, demonstrated a clear linear relationship between diastolic BP and cardiovascular events. These studies indicate that a potential reduction in CVD risk is possible, irrespective of baseline diastolic BP values.SummarySufficient recent evidence indicates that low diastolic BP is not causal of worse cardiovascular outcomes but rather represents confounding or reverse causation. Therefore, while low diastolic BP can be considered a marker of CVD risk, this risk is not expected to increase with further BP lowering when necessary to control concomitant elevations of systolic BP. Indeed, BP reduction in this setting appears beneficial.

Characteristics of Populations Excluded From Clinical Trials Supporting Intensive Blood Pressure Control Guidelines.

BackgroundOnly one third of patients recommended intensified treatment by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline for high blood pressure would have been eligible for the clinical trials on which recommendations were largely based. We sought to identify characteristics of adults who would have been trial‐ineligible in order to inform clinical practice and research priorities.Methods and ResultsWe examined the proportion of adults diagnosed with hypertension who met trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, stratified by age, diabetes mellitus status, and guideline recommendations in a cross‐sectional study of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2013–2016. Of the 107.7 million adults (95% CI, 99.3–116.0 million) classified as having hypertension by the ACC/AHA guideline, 23.1% (95% CI, 20.8%–25.5%) were below the target blood pressure of 130/80 mm Hg, 22.2% (95% CI, 20.1%–24.4%) would be recommended nonpharmacologic treatment, and 54.6% (95% CI, 52.5%–56.7%) would be recommended additional pharmacotherapy. Only 20.6% (95% CI, 18.8%–22.4%) of adults with hypertension would be trial‐eligible. The majority of adults <50 years were excluded because of low cardiovascular risk and lack of access to primary care. The majority of adults aged ≥70 years were excluded because of multimorbidity and limited life expectancy. Reasons for trial exclusion were similar for patients with and without diabetes mellitus.ConclusionsIntensive blood pressure treatment trials were not representative of many younger adults with low cardiovascular risk and older adults with multimorbidity who are now recommended more intensive blood pressure goals.

Abstract MP53: Intensive Blood Pressure Reduction and Secondary Stroke Risk: A Posthoc Analysis of the Sps3 Trial

Introduction: The SPRINT trial demonstrated cardiovascular benefit for a target systolic blood pressure (SBP) &lt;120 mm Hg, but the effect on primary stroke was neutral. The Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) trial did not reduce secondary stroke with a target SBP &lt;130 mm Hg. No trial has investigated the effect of the more intensive SPRINT target of &lt;120 mm Hg on secondary stroke risk. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of SPS3 and included patients with at least 10 SBP readings. The primary predictor is mean SBP from day 30 (to avoid confounding from the initial study intervention) to 2 years. The primary outcome is recurrent ischemic stroke from day 30 to 2 years. We fit Cox models to our outcomes to derive hazard ratios for recurrent stroke events. Results: We included 2,859 patients, of which 121 (4.2%) had ischemic stroke during follow-up. There were 321 patients with SBP &lt;120 (mean=115.5 mm Hg) and 2,538 with SBP ≥120 (mean=134.6 mm Hg), with a respective recurrent stroke rate of 1.9% versus 4.5% (p=0.026). In the Cox model, the hazard ratio for stroke with mean SBP &lt;120 mm Hg was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.18-0.92) (Figure 1) and after adjustment for potential confounders (age, sex, race, education, smoking, prior stroke, prior myocardial infarction) the hazard ratio was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.16-0.96). Conclusion: In patients with lacunar stroke, achieving the SPRINT intensive blood pressure goal of &lt;120 mm Hg was associated with a lower risk of recurrent stroke. While the current study is underpowered and has bias, these preliminary results suggest that the SPRINT definition of intensive blood pressure reduction could be beneficial for secondary stroke prevention.

Blood Pressure Control with Reference to Intensive Blood Pressure Targets Among Hypertension Patients on Chronic Follow-Up at Dessie Referral Hospital, Northeast Ethiopia.

BackgroundHypertension is a risk factor for heart, brain, kidney, and other diseases. It is also the major cause of premature death. Thus, it is important to prevent, treat, and control hypertension and to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.ObjectiveTo determine the level of blood pressure control and associated factors based on the new intensive blood pressure goals (<130/80 mmHg).MethodsA cross-sectional study design was used to assess the level of blood pressure control and associated factors from February 15 to April 15, 2019. Two hundred and sixteen patients were selected through a systematic sampling technique.ResultsFrom 203 hypertension patients incorporated in the study, 102 (50.2%) were females. The mean age of patients documented during the last date of follow-up was 55.2 (SD=±14.47). About 51.2% of patients were less than 5 years from the day of diagnosis of hypertension. The majority of the study participants (111, 54.7%) were using two antihypertensives. The most common anti-hypertensive medication was hydrochlorothiazide (HCT), at 25 (12.3%). The most common combination drug therapy used was the combination of HCT and calcium channel blockers, at 62 (30.5%). Heart failure (22, 20.8%), stroke (18, 16.98%), and dyslipidemia (17, 16.04%) were the top three comorbidities. Based on the new intensive targets of blood pressure control (<130/80 mmHg), the blood pressure was controlled for only 25 (12%) patients.ConclusionThe level of blood pressure control for hypertensive patients on chronic follow-up at Dessie Referral Hospital was very poor.

Benefits and potential risks of intensive goals in the treatment of arterial hypertension. Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

There is controversy regarding the most appropriate goals for blood pressure control. We assess the benefits and risks of chossing different therapeutic thresholds. We perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of large clinical trials in order to assess the impact of different therapeutic strategies on the reduction of cardiovascular events and the development of serious adverse effects. Four trials with 29,820 participants were included, with mean age of 65 ± 7.9 years; 42.2% were women and 22% were diabetic. Overall, intensive goals showed a non-significant trend towards reducing cardiovascular mortality (relative risk [RR]: 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-1.07; p=0.16) with non-impact in total mortality (p=0.45) and with moderate heterogeneity among the included trials (I index [I]2:44 and 59% respectively). Nevertheless, intensive goals reduce non-fatal cardiovascular events (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.91; p=0.0003), being consistent in all the analyzed trials (I2: 0%). Regarding adverse effects, intensive goals caused more emergency consultations or hospitalization (RR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.59-2.46; p<0.0001; I2: 14%), with no clear increase in renal failure (RR: 1.65; 95% CI: 0.94-2.89) but with increase in falls and syncope (RR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.56-3.67; p<0.0001; I2: 28%). Intensive blood pressure goals reduce non-fatal cardiovascular events, without reduction in mortality, and with an increase of risk of adverse events. These results suggest that individual goals should be set according to the risk of each patient. ­ PROSPERO (CRD42020149134).

Effects of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment on Orthostatic Hypotension

Although intensive blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment reduces risk for cardiovascular disease, there are concerns that it might cause orthostatic hypotension (OH). To examine the effects of intensive BP-lowering treatment on OH in hypertensive adults. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through 7 October 2019, without language restrictions. Randomized trials of BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) that involved more than 500 adults with hypertension or elevated BP and that were 6 months or longer in duration. Trial comparisons were groups assigned to either less intensive BP goals or placebo, and the outcome was measured OH, defined as a decrease of 20 mm Hg or more in systolic BP or 10 mm Hg or more in diastolic BP after changing position from seated to standing. 2 investigators independently abstracted articles and rated risk of bias. 5 trials examined BP treatment goals, and 4 examined active agents versus placebo. Trials examining BP treatment goals included 18466 participants with 127882 follow-up visits. Trials were open-label, with minimal heterogeneity of effects across trials. Intensive BP treatment lowered risk for OH (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]). Effects did not differ by prerandomization OH (P for interaction = 0.80). In sensitivity analyses that included 4 additional placebo-controlled trials, overall and subgroup findings were unchanged. Assessments of OH were done while participants were seated (not supine) and did not include the first minute after standing. Data on falls and syncope were not available. Intensive BP-lowering treatment decreases risk for OH. Orthostatic hypotension, before or in the setting of more intensive BP treatment, should not be viewed as a reason to avoid or de-escalate treatment for hypertension. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. (PROSPERO: CRD42020153753).

Abstract MP36: Effects Of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment On Orthostatic Hypotension: An Individual-level Meta-analysis

Background: Intensive blood pressure (BP) treatment reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but there are ongoing concerns that it also might be harmful by increasing the risk of orthostatic hypotension (OH). However, individual trials have been inconclusive. Methods: In this individual participant data meta-analysis, we systematically reviewed MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases through October 7, 2019 for randomized trials of BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) on measured OH. OH was defined as a drop in SBP ≥20 mmHg or DBP ≥10 mmHg after changing positions from seated to standing. Ultimately, five trials of BP treatment goal were identified. Effects were examined overall and in subgroups of baseline characteristics, including diabetes, standing BP pre-randomization (&lt;110 vs ≥110 mm Hg), and pre-randomization OH. Results: There were 18,466 participants with 127,998 follow-up visits. Most trials demonstrated low risk of bias with minimal heterogeneity of effects across trials ( I 2 = 0.0%). Intensive BP treatment significantly lowered risk of OH (OR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.99). Effects were strongest among adults without diabetes (OR 0.90 vs 1.10; P -interaction = 0.015) and adults with lower standing SBP (OR 0.66 for &lt;110 mmHg vs 0.96 for ≥110 mmHg; P -interaction = 0.02). Effects did not differ by pre-randomization OH ( P -interaction = 0.80). In sensitivity analyses that included 4 additional placebo-controlled trials, overall and subgroup findings were unchanged ( Figure ). Conclusion: OH prior to or in the setting of more intensive BP treatment should not be viewed as a reason to avoid or to de-escalate treatment for hypertension.

Cost-Effectiveness and Challenges of Implementing Intensive Blood Pressure Goals and Team-Based Care.

Review the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation challenges of intensive blood pressure (BP) control and team-based care initiatives. Intensive BP control is an effective and cost-effective intervention; yet, implementation in routine clinical practice is challenging. Several models of team-based care for hypertension management have been shown to be more effective than usual care to control BP. Additional research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of team-based care models relative to one another and as they relate to implementing intensive BP goals. As a focus of healthcare shifts to value (i.e., cost, effectiveness, and patient preferences), formal cost-effectiveness analyses will inform which team-based initiatives hold the highest value in different healthcare settings with different populations and needs. Several challenges, including clinical inertia, financial investment, and billing restrictions for pharmacist-delivered services, will need to be addressed in order to improve public health through intensive BP control and team-based care.

Abstract 3: Effect of BP Goal on Outcome post Mechanical Thrombectomy: Multicenter Study

Introduction: Current AHA/ASA guidelines recommend keeping blood pressure (BP) &lt;180/105 after successful recanalization with MT. However, due to a concern of reperfusion injury, different BP goals are utilized across various endovascular centers. In this study, we compared functional and hemorrhagic outcomes between different BP goals. Methods: This was a multicenter international retrospective study that included 7 comprehensive stroke centers. Inclusion criteria were anterior circulation large vessel occlusion (LVO) that was treated with MT, and successful recanalization at the conclusion of the procedure. Patients were divided into three groups based on systolic BP (SBP) goals in the first 24 hours post MT. Group 1) included patients with SBP goal ≤140 mm Hg or ≤120 mm Hg; group 2 included patients with SBP goal ≤160 mm Hg; group 3) included patients with SBP goal ≤220 mm Hg or ≤180 mm Hg. Successful recanalization was defined as TICI 2b-3. Outcome measures included symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and 90-day mortality. Results: A total of 985 patients were included in the study. More patients in group 3 were white and had Afib than groups 1-2. Likewise, more patients in group 3 received IV tPA. Complete recanalization (TICI 2c-3) was achieved in 88.2%, 53.6%, and 73.2% in groups 1,2,3 respectively (p &lt;0.001). With respect to outcome, mRS 0-2 was achieved in 50%, 52, and 38% of patients (p=0.001) in groups 1,2,3 respectively. Similarly, sICH occurred in 2.8%, 7.1%, and 5.2% (p=0.04) in the respective groups. In multivariate analysis, moderate and intensive BP goals (groups 1-2) were associated with mRS 0-2 but not with sICH or mortality. In subgroup analysis that included only patients who achieved BP goal, group 1 but not 2 or 3 were associated with functional outcome. Conclusion: Blood pressure goals ≤140 and ≤160 were associated with favorable functional outcome.

Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering on Kidney Tubule Injury: Findings From the ACCORD Trial Study Participants

Random assignment to intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering (systolic BP<120mmHg) compared to a less intensive BP target (systolic BP<140mmHg) in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes BP (ACCORD-BP) trial resulted in a more rapid decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Whether this reflects hemodynamic effects or intrinsic kidney damage is unknown. Longitudinal analysis of a subgroup of clinical trial participants. A subgroup of 529 participants in ACCORD-BP. Urine biomarkers of tubular injury (kidney injury molecule 1, interleukin 18 [IL-18]),repair (human cartilage glycoprotein 39 [YKL-40]), and inflammation (monocyte chemoattractant protein 1) at baseline and year2. Changes in eGFR from baseline to 2 years. We compared changes in biomarker levels and eGFRs across participants treated to an intensive versus less intensive BP goal using analysis of covariance. Of 529 participants, 260 had been randomly assigned to the intensive and 269 to the standard BP arm. Mean age was 62±6.5 years and eGFR was 90mL/min/1.73m2. Baseline clinical characteristics, eGFRs, urinary albumin-creatinine ratios (ACRs), and urinary biomarker levels were similar across BP treatment groups. Compared to less intensive BP treatment, eGFR was 9.2mL/min/1.73m2 lower in the intensive BP treatment group at year 2. Despite the eGFR reduction, within this treatment group, ACR was 30% lower and 4 urinary biomarker levels were unchanged or lower at year 2. Also within this group, participants with the largest declines in eGFRs had greater reductions in urinary IL-18 and YKL-40 levels. In a subgroup analysis of participants developing incident chronic kidney disease (sustained 30% decline and eGFR<60mL/min/1.73m2; n=77), neither ACR nor 4 biomarker levels increased in the intensive treatment group, whereas the level of 1 biomarker, IL-18, increased in the less intensive treatment group. Few participants with advanced baseline chronic kidney disease. Comparisons across treatment groups do not represent comparisons of treatment arms created solely through randomization. Among a subset of ACCORD-BP trial participants, intensive BP control was associated with reductions in eGFRs, but not with an increase in injury marker levels. These findings support that eGFR decline observed with intensive BP goals in ACCORD participants may predominantly reflect hemodynamic alterations.

Hypertension Treatment Effects on Orthostatic Hypotension and Its Relationship With Cardiovascular Disease.

Although orthostatic hypotension (OH) is often considered a contraindication to blood pressure (BP) treatment, evidence is lacking. We examined the effect of BP goal or initial medication choice on OH in AASK (African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension), a 2×3 factorial trial. Blacks with chronic kidney disease attributed to hypertension were randomly assigned 1 of 2 BP goals: intensive (mean arterial pressure, ≤92 mm Hg) or standard (mean arterial pressure, 102-107 mm Hg) and 1 of 3 initial medications (ramipril, metoprolol, and amlodipine). Postural changes in systolic BP, diastolic BP, or heart rate (HR) were determined after 2 minutes and 45 seconds of standing. OH was assessed each visit and defined using the consensus definition (drop in systolic BP ≥20 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥10 mm Hg). Median follow-up was 4 years. Outcomes were congestive heart failure, stroke, nonfatal cardiovascular disease (CVD), fatal CVD, any CVD (composite of preceding events), and all-cause mortality. There were 1094 participants (mean age, 54.5±10.7 years; 38.8% female; OH was assessed at 52 864 visits). Mean seated systolic BP, diastolic BP, and HR were 150.3±23.9 mm Hg, 95.5±14.2 mm Hg, and 72.0±12.6 bpm, respectively. A more intensive BP goal did not alter the distributions of standing BP and was not associated with OH, but metoprolol was associated with systolic OH compared with ramipril (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.15-2.46) and amlodipine (odds ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.09-3.44). Although consensus OH was associated with stroke (HR, 5.01; 95% CI, 1.80-13.92), nonfatal CVD (HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.21-4.30), and any CVD event (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.12-3.98), neither BP goal or medication altered this risk. Concerns about causing OH or its CVD consequences should not deter a lower BP goal among adults with chronic kidney disease attributed to hypertension.

Treatment of Hypertension in Chronic Kidney Disease.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is recognized as a worldwide epidemic. Hypertension commonly coexists with CKD and its prevalence is progressively increasing as kidney function declines. For patients with established CKD and/or diabetes with albuminuria, the updated hypertension guidelines have recommended a blood pressure (BP) goal < 130/80mmHg. Blood pressure level above 130/80mmHg in CKD patients requires lifestyle modifications and multiple antihypertensive medications. According to recent guidelines, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors should be the drugs of first choice. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) should be used if the ACE inhibitor is not tolerated. Non-dihydropyridine CCBs consistently reduce albuminuria and slow the decline in kidney function. Dihydropyridine CCBs should not be used as monotherapy in proteinuric CKD patients but always in combination with a RAAS blocker. Diuretics are commonly used and represent the cornerstone in the management of CKD patients. All the other agents are used when treatment with the other primary agents have failed. In patients with CKD, an intensive BP goal < 130/80mmHg has been recommended. We review current treatment options.

Abstract P177: Potential Value of Intensive Blood-Pressure Treatment Based on Predicted Lifetime Cardiovascular Disease at Age 40: Computer Simulation Study

Introduction: In the SPRINT trial, intensive blood pressure (BP) treatment saved lives and was cost-effective in high-risk older adults. It is unclear if intensive BP treatment should be extended to high-risk adults aged 40-49 years. Objectives: We used individual patient computer simulation to assess the incremental value of extending intensive BP treatment to adults as young as age 40 with high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We selected patients aged &lt;60 years with high lifetime risk because few have high ten-year risk. Methods: Male and female cohorts of 100,000 individuals were assembled from NHANES surveys 1999-2010 using sampling weights. BP and other risk factor trajectories were projected for ages 40 to 69 years based on Framingham Offspring Cohort analyses. The “standard of care” treatment scenario simulated treating BP &lt;140/90 mmHg in all patients ≥140/90 mmHg. Two alternative scenarios were simulated: add intensive treatment (goal &lt;130/90 mmHg) from age 40-69 or from age 50-59 in patients with high lifetime risk. The lifetime risk thresholds (Table 1) were chosen in order to capture patients with forecasted ten-year CVD risk ≥ 10% at age 60. Costs included added treatment and side-effect costs and avoided CVD costs; indexed to 2016. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) assessed changes in costs and quality-adjusted life years due to adding intensive BP goals. Results: Over a 30-year time horizon, adding intensive treatment in high lifetime risk patients at age 40 would prevent 2,880 additional CVD events in males and 2,958 in females compared to treating only BP &lt;140/90 mmHg. Intensive treatment in high lifetime risk patients before age 60 appeared generally cost-effective except in females aged 40 years (ICER $59,000). Conclusion: Our results suggest that over the long term, intensive BP treatment may be cost-effective in high-risk men as young as 40 and high-risk women as young as 50. Lifetime cardiovascular disease risk might be used to select high risk middle-aged adults for intensive BP treatment.

Ronda clínica y epidemiológica: club de revistas

In this edition of the clinical and epidemiological&nbsp;round, we present four articles that we consider relevant&nbsp;from a clinical point of view. Wan-Chuan, et al.,&nbsp;contribute with a systematic review and meta-analysis&nbsp;to the discussion of the ideal blood pressure goals, this&nbsp;time from a different perspective: impact of intensive&nbsp;blood pressure goals in non-diabetic patients with&nbsp;chronic kidney disease. In addition, Valent et al., performed&nbsp;a randomized clinical trial to study the effect&nbsp;of the post-operatory prophylaxis in the risk of infection&nbsp;of the surgical site in obese pregnant women underwent&nbsp;a cesarean section. On the other hand, Miro&nbsp;et al., followed a cohort of patients with acute heart&nbsp;failure to prove the possibility to predict mortality&nbsp;using information which can be taken in the emergency&nbsp;room. To conclude, Andersson et al., bring a promising&nbsp;proposal to improve the diagnostic approach in&nbsp;patients in which an appendicitis is suspected, as well&nbsp;as its impact in the use of the resources.

Abstract P278: Potential Value of Long-term Intensive BP Treatment in 40-year Patients: A Computer Simulation Study

Introduction: Intensive blood pressure (BP) goals are considered for high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk adults ≥50 years old; the long-term value of intensive BP goals in younger high CVD risk patients has not been studied. Objectives: We used individual patient computer simulations to assess the incremental value of intensive BP goals in high CVD risk patients as young as 40 years. Methods: Six age/sex cohorts of 100,000 individuals were assembled by sampling NHANES surveys 1999-2010. BP and other risk factor trajectories were projected from ages 60 to 69, 50 to 69, and 40 to 69 years based on Framingham Offspring Cohort analyses. One BP treatment scenario simulated treating BP &lt;140/90 mmHg in all patients ≥140/90; a second scenario added to the first a goal &lt;BP 130/90 mmHg in patients with systolic BP ≥130 and 10-year CVD risk ≥10%. Costs included added treatment and side-effect costs and avoided CVD costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) assessed changes in costs and quality-adjusted life years due to adding intensive BP goals in each cohort. Results: Intensive goals were generally cost-effective in high-risk CVD risk patients (Table). Treating 40-year old cohorts was the highest value strategy. This was because of large life-year gains when events are prevented early in life and because hypertensive 40 year-olds “age into” much higher BPs and CVD risk over time. To illustrate the latter, mean untreated systolic BPs at age 60 were 152, 148, and 146 mmHg, and mean 10-year CVD risk scores were 17%, 15% and 13% for 40-, 50- and 60-year-old male cohorts, respectively. Conclusion: Intensive BP goals were projected to be cost-effective over a 30-year time horizon in high-risk hypertensive patients as young as 40 years old.