BACKGROUND There is no evidence from randomized trials to support a strategy of lowering systolic blood pressure below 135 to 140 mm Hg in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We investigated whether therapy targeting normal systolic pressure (i.e., <120 mm Hg) reduces major cardiovascular events in participants with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events. METHODS A total of 4733 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to intensive therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, or standard therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 140 mm Hg. The primary composite outcome was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The mean follow-up was 4.7 years. RESULTS After 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 119.3 mm Hg in the intensive-therapy group and 133.5 mm Hg in the standard-therapy group. The annual rate of the primary outcome was 1.87% in the intensive-therapy group and 2.09% in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio with intensive therapy, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.06; P = 0.20). The annual rates of death from any cause were 1.28% and 1.19% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.35; P = 0.55). The annual rates of stroke, a prespecified secondary outcome, were 0.32% and 0.53% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.89; P = 0.01). Serious adverse events attributed to antihypertensive treatment occurred in 77 of the 2362 participants in the intensive-therapy group (3.3%) and 30 of the 2371 participants in the standard-therapy group (1.3%) (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.)

Design ACCORD is a parallel group, randomized trial designed to investigate whether intensive glycemic therapy with a target HbA1c of <6.0% versus standard therapy with a target of 7.0 to 7.9% reduces cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity, mortality, and microvascular complications in participants with type 2 diabetes. Methods Volunteers with established type 2 diabetes, HbA1c levels ≥ 7.5% and CVD or two or more CVD risk factors were recruited at 77 clinical sites across the U.S. and Canada. Instructional materials, behavioral counseling, glucose-lowering medications and self-monitoring supplies were provided by the study. Therapeutic regimens were individualized on the basis of randomized assignment and response to therapy. This investigation examines the effect of treatment to glycemic goals on occurrence of microvascular diabetes complications. Prespecified composite outcomes were: 1) dialysis or renal transplantation, or serum creatinine >291.7 micromol/L, or retinal photocoagulation or vitrectomy, and 2) these plus peripheral neuropathy. Thirteen prespecified secondary measures of kidney, eye, and peripheral nerve function were also evaluated. Randomization was performed at clinical sites using a central randomization routine available on the study website. Both investigators and participants were unmasked to treatment arm assignment. Results A total of 10,251 participants were randomized (5,128 intensive and 5,123 standard) between January, 2001 and October, 2005. This analysis includes 10,234 patients (5,107 intensive and 5,108 standard). Intensive therapy was stopped before study end due to increased mortality, and patients were transitioned to standard therapy. Outcomes are reported at transition and at study end. At transition, the first composite outcome occurred in 443/5107 and 444/5108 participants in the intensive and standard arms, respectively (p= 0.99), and the second outcome in 1591/5107 and 1659/5108 participants in intensive and standard arms (p=0.20). Results were similar at study end. Secondary measures at study end favoring intensive therapy (p<0.05) included development of macroalbuminuria, cataract extraction, visual acuity, a score of >2.0 on the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, loss of ankle jerk and light touch. Conclusions Intensive glycemic treatment did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of macroalbuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy. These benefits must be weighed against the increase in total and CVD-related mortality, increased weight gain, and higher risk for severe hypoglycemia.

No abstract

The appropriate target for BP in patients with CKD and hypertension remains uncertain. We report prespecified subgroup analyses of outcomes in participants with baseline CKD in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. We randomly assigned participants to a systolic BP target of <120 mm Hg (intensive group; =1330) or<140 mm Hg (standard group; =1316). After a median follow-up of 3.3 years, the primary composite cardiovascular outcome occurred in 112 intensive group and 131 standard group CKD participants (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.63 to 1.05). The intensive group also had a lower rate of all-cause death (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.99). Treatment effects did not differ between participants with and without CKD ( values for interactions ≥0.30). The prespecified main kidney outcome, defined as the composite of ≥50% decrease in eGFR from baseline or ESRD, occurred in 15 intensive group and 16 standard group participants (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.83). After the initial 6 months, the intensive group had a slightly higher rate of change in eGFR (-0.47 versus -0.32 ml/min per 1.73 m per year; <0.03). The overall rate of serious adverse events did not differ between treatment groups, although some specific adverse events occurred more often in the intensive group. Thus, among patients with CKD and hypertension without diabetes, targeting an SBP<120 mm Hg compared with <140 mm Hg reduced rates of major cardiovascular events and all-cause death without evidence of effect modifications by CKD or deleterious effect on the main kidney outcome.

No abstract

The diagnosis and management of hypertension, a common cardiovascular risk factor among the general population, have been based primarily on the measurement of blood pressure (BP) in the office. BP may differ considerably when measured in the office and when measured outside of the office setting, and higher out-of-office BP is associated with increased cardiovascular risk independent of office BP. Self-measured BP monitoring, the measurement of BP by an individual outside of the office at home, is a validated approach for out-of-office BP measurement. Several national and international hypertension guidelines endorse self-measured BP monitoring. Indications include the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension and the identification of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension. Other indications include confirming the diagnosis of resistant hypertension and detecting morning hypertension. Validated self-measured BP monitoring devices that use the oscillometric method are preferred, and a standardized BP measurement and monitoring protocol should be followed. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials indicates that self-measured BP monitoring is associated with a reduction in BP and improved BP control, and the benefits of self-measured BP monitoring are greatest when done along with cointerventions. The addition of self-measured BP monitoring to office BP monitoring is cost-effective compared with office BP monitoring alone or usual care among individuals with high office BP. The use of self-measured BP monitoring is commonly reported by both individuals and providers. Therefore, self-measured BP monitoring has high potential for improving the diagnosis and management of hypertension in the United States. Randomized controlled trials examining the impact of self-measured BP monitoring on cardiovascular outcomes are needed. To adequately address barriers to the implementation of self-measured BP monitoring, financial investment is needed in the following areas: improving education and training of individuals and providers, building health information technology capacity, incorporating self-measured BP readings into clinical performance measures, supporting cointerventions, and enhancing reimbursement.

Blood pressure (BP) control rates and number of antihypertensive medications were compared (average follow-up, 4.9 years) by randomized groups: chlorthalidone, 12.5-25 mg ⁄ d (n=15,255), amlodipine 2.5-10 mg ⁄ d (n=9048), or lisinopril 10-40 mg ⁄ d (n=9054) in a randomized double-blind hypertension trial. Participants were hypertensives aged 55 or older with additional cardiovascular risk factor(s), recruited from 623 centers. Additional agents from other classes were added as needed to achieve BP control. BP was reduced from 145 ⁄ 83 mm Hg (27% control) to 134 ⁄ 76 mm Hg (chlorthalidone, 68% control), 135 ⁄ 75 mm Hg (amlodipine, 66% control), and 136 ⁄ 76 mm Hg (lisinopril, 61% control) by 5 years; the mean number of drugs prescribed was 1.9, 2.0, and 2.1, respectively. Only 28% (chlorthalidone), 24% (amlodipine), and 24% (lisinopril) were controlled on monotherapy. BP control was achieved in the majority of each randomized group-a greater proportion with chlorthalidone. Over time, providers and patients should expect multidrug therapy to achieve BP <140 ⁄ 90 mm Hg in a majority of patients. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2008;10:751-760.ª 2008 Le Jacq M ore than 70 million Americans-nearly 1 in 3 adults-have hypertension; its prevalence increases with age.

No abstract