Intensive Blood Pressure Targets for Diabetic and Other High-Risk Populations

Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering in patients with diabetes: A pooled analysis of the STEP and ACCORD-BP randomized trials

AIM

To determine whether intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering can benefit hypertensive patients with diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a pooled analysis of individual patient data from two randomized trials to compare intensive and standard SBP targets in hypertensive patients with diabetes (STEP diabetes subgroup and ACCORD-BP standard glycaemic group, n = 1627 and n = 2362, respectively). We defined a modified primary outcome as a composite of stroke, major coronary artery disease (myocardial infarction and unstable angina), heart failure, and cardiovascular death. The secondary outcomes were individual components of the primary outcome and death from any cause. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in the main analysis. We conducted one-stage mixed-effect models and two-stage analyses as sensitivity and supplementary analyses to verify the robustness of the findings.

RESULTS

A total of 3989 patients were randomized to undergo intensive (n = 1984) or standard SBP treatment (n = 2005). After a median follow-up of 3.83 years, the primary outcome occurred in 193/1984 patients in the intensive group and in 247/2005 patients in the standard group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.93). The incidence rates for secondary outcomes were lower in the intensive group than in the standard group, but were not significantly different, except for stroke (intensive vs. standard: 32/1984 vs. 58/2005; HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36-0.86). These results remained consistent in the additional sensitivity and supplementary analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

An intensive SBP-lowering target of 110 to <130 mmHg reduces the cardiovascular outcomes compared with a standard SBP-lowering target of 130 to <150 mmHg. The findings of this study support the favourable effects of intensive SBP lowering in hypertensive patients with diabetes.

[Individualising antihypertensive therapy in patients with diabetes. A guideline by the Austrian Diabetes Association (update 2023)]

Hypertension is one of the most important comorbidities of diabetes, contributing significantly to death and leading to macrovascular and microvascular complications. When assessing the medical priorities for patients with diabetes, treating hypertension should be a primary consideration. In the present review practical approaches to hypertension in diabetes, including individualized targets for preventing specific complications are discussed according to current evidence and guidelines. Blood pressure values of about 130/80 mm Hg are associated with the best outcome; most importantly, at least blood pressure values < 140/90 mm Hg should be achieved in most patients. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers should be preferred in patients with diabetes, especially in those who also have albuminuria or coronary artery disease. Most patients with diabetes require combination therapy to achieve blood pressure goals; agents with proven cardiovascular benefit should be used (including, besides angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and alternatively angiotensin receptor blockers, dihydropyridin-calcium antagonists and thiazide diuretics), preferable in single-pill combinations. Once the target is achieved, antihypertensive drugs should be continued. Newer antidiabetic medications such as SGLT-2-inhibitors or GLP1-receptor agonists have also antihypertensive effects.

Glycemic status and the association of change in blood pressure with incident cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of blood pressure (BP) reduction in individuals with diabetes has not been fully elucidated. We sought to identify the clinical impact of BP reduction on incident cardiovascular disease in people having diabetes and hypertension.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study including 754,677 individuals (median age 47 years, 75.8 % men) with stage 1/stage 2 hypertension. Participants were categorized using fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at baseline as normal FPG (FPG < 100 mg/dL) (n = 517,372), prediabetes (FPG:100-125 mg/dL) (n = 197,836), or diabetes mellitus (FPG ≥126 mg/dL) (n = 39,469). The primary outcome was heart failure (HF), and the secondary outcomes included ischemic heart disease (IHD) including myocardial infarction and angina pectoris, and stroke.

RESULTS

Over a mean follow-up of 1111 ± 909 days, 18,429 HFs, 17,058 IHDs, and 8,795 strokes were recorded. Reduction in BP of< 120/80 mmHg at 1year was associated with a lower risk of developing HF (HR:0.77, 95% CI:0.72-0.82), IHD (HR:0.84, 95% CI:0.79-0.89), and stroke (HR:0.75, 95% CI:0.69-0.82) in individuals with normal FPG, whereas it was not associated with a risk of developing HF (HR:0.98, 95% CI:0.81-1.17) and stroke (HR:0.82, 95% CI:0.62-1.09) in those with DM. Interaction analyses showed that the influence of BP reduction on incident HF was attenuated with people with prediabetes or DM. A multitude of sensitivity analyses confirmed our results.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of BP reduction with the risk of developing HF was attenuated with deteriorating glucose tolerance. The optimal management strategy for hypertensive people with prediabetes or DM for the prevention of developing cardiovascular disease (particularly HF) is needed to be established.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

The Causal Effect of Systolic Blood Pressure Lowering on Vascular Outcomes in Diabetes: A Mendelian Randomization Study

CONTEXT

The effect of lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) on clinical outcomes in diabetic patients is controversial.

OBJECTIVE

We used 2-sample mendelian randomization (MR) to study the causal effect of decreasing SBP on the risk of macrovascular and microvascular outcomes in diabetic patients.

METHODS

We used 362 SBP-related genetic variants from a large genome-wide association study (n = 299 024) and UK Biobank (n = 375 256) as exposure. We evaluated 5 macrovascular and microvascular complications up to 60 742 cases as outcomes in diabetes, including coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease (PAD), nephropathy, retinopathy, and composite complications. All cases were diagnosed together with diabetes. We performed follow-up analyses by conducting 7 sensitivity analyses and comparing the present MR with results in general population, and clinical trials.

RESULTS

Genetic predisposition of each 10-mm Hg SBP decrease was significantly associated with a 28% decreased risk of CAD (odds ratio [OR]: 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89; P = .002), a 34% decreased risk of nephropathy (OR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.81; P < .001), and a 34% decreased risk of the composite complications (OR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.76; P < .001), and was nominally associated with a decreased risk of PAD (OR: 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and retinopathy (OR: 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-0.99). The MR results in diabetes were similar with that in the general population and clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

SBP lowering was causally associated with an attenuated risk of diabetic CAD and nephropathy. It provides genetic evidence for the beneficial effect of lifelong SBP control in preventing diabetes-related vascular outcomes.

Understanding treatment-subgroup effect in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: An exploration using meta-analyses of individual patient data

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Recommendations for preventing cardiovascular (CV) disease are currently separated into primary and secondary prevention. We hypothesize that relative effects of interventions for CV prevention are not different across primary and secondary prevention cohorts. Our aim was to test for differences in relative effects on CV events in common preventive CV interventions across primary and secondary prevention cohorts.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic search was performed to identify individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses that included both primary and secondary prevention populations. Eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. We extracted relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of the interventions over patient-important outcomes and estimated the ratio of RR for primary and secondary prevention populations. We identified five eligible IPDs representing 524,570 participants. Quality assessment resulted in overall low-to-moderate methodological quality. We found no subgroup effect across prevention categories in any of the outcomes assessed.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of significant treatment-subgroup interactions between primary and secondary CV prevention cohorts for common preventive interventions, clinical practice guidelines could offer recommendations tailored to individual estimates of CV risk without regard to membership to primary and secondary prevention cohorts. This would require the development of reliable ASCVD risk estimators that apply across both cohorts.

Cardiovascular risk management in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A joint position paper of the Italian Cardiology (SIC) and Italian Diabetes (SID) Societies

AIM

This review represents a joint effort of the Italian Societies of Cardiology (SIC) and Diabetes (SID) to define the state of the art in a field of great clinical and scientific interest which is experiencing a moment of major cultural advancements, the cardiovascular risk management in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Consists of six chapters that examine various aspects of pathophysiology, diagnosis and therapy which in recent months have seen numerous scientific innovations and several clinical studies that require extensive sharing.

CONCLUSIONS

The continuous evolution of our knowledge in this field confirms the great cultural vitality of these two cultural spheres, which requires, under the leadership of the scientific Societies, an ever greater and effective collaboration.

Empagliflozin for Patients With Presumed Resistant Hypertension: A Post Hoc Analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and resistant hypertension often coexist, greatly increasing risk of target-organ damage and death. We explored the effects of empagliflozin in patients with and without presumed resistant hypertension (prHT) in a post hoc analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME (NCT01131676).

METHODS

Overall, 7,020 patients received empagliflozin 10, 25 mg, or placebo with median follow-up of 3.1 years. We defined baseline prHT as ≥3 classes of antihypertensive drugs including a diuretic and uncontrolled blood pressure (BP; systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg) or ≥4 classes of antihypertensive, including a diuretic, and controlled BP. We explored the effect of empagliflozin on cardiovascular (CV) death, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, 3-point major adverse cardiac events, all-cause death, and incident/worsening nephropathy by Cox regression and BP over time by a mixed-repeated-measures-model analysis.

RESULTS

1,579 (22.5%) patients had prHT. The mean difference in change in SBP from baseline to week 12 vs. placebo was -4.5 (95% confidence interval, -5.9 to -3.1) mm Hg (P < 0.001) in prHT and -3.7 (-4.5, -2.9) mm Hg (P < 0.001) in patients without prHT. SBP was more frequently controlled (<130/80 mm Hg) with empagliflozin than with placebo. Patients with prHT had 1.5- to 2-fold greater risk of HF hospitalization, incident/worsening nephropathy, and CV death compared with those without prHT. Empagliflozin improved all outcomes in patients with and without prHT (interaction P > 0.1 for all outcomes).

CONCLUSIONS

Empagliflozin induced a clinically relevant reduction in SBP and consistently improved all outcomes regardless of prHT status. Due to these dual effects, empagliflozin should be considered for patients with hypertension and T2D.

A simple nomogram score for screening patients with type 2 diabetes to detect those with hypertension: A cross-sectional study based on a large community survey in China

OBJECTIVES

Compared with unaffected individuals, patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have higher risk of hypertension, and diabetes combined with hypertension can lead to server cardiovascular disease. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to establish a simple nomogram model to identify the determinants of hypertension in patients with T2DM and to quickly calculate the probability of hypertension in individuals with T2DM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 643,439 subjects participating in the national physical examination has been recruited in this cross-sectional study. After excluding unqualified subjects, 30,507 adults with T2DM were included in the final analysis. 21,355 and 9,152 subjects were randomly assigned to the model developing group and validation group, respectively, with a ratio of 7:3. The potential risk factors used in this study to assess hypertension in patients with T2DM included questionnaire investigation and physical measurement variables. We used the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator models to optimize feature selection, and the multivariable logistic regression analysis was for predicting model. Discrimination and calibration were assessed using the receiver operating curve (ROC) and calibration curve.

RESULTS

The results showed that the major determinants of hypertension in patients with T2DM were age, gender, drinking, exercise, smoking, obesity and atherosclerotic vascular disease. The area under ROC curve of developing group and validation group are both 0.814, indicating that the prediction model owns high disease recognition ability. The p values of the two calibration curves are 0.625 and 0.445, suggesting that the nomogram gives good calibration.

CONCLUSION

The individualized nomogram model can facilitate improved screening and early identification of patients with hypertension in T2DM. This procedure will be useful in developing regions with high epidemiological risk and poor socioeconomic status just like Urumqi, in Northern China.

Blood pressure levels and risk of cardiovascular disease mortality among Japanese men and women: the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer Risk (JACC Study)

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of blood pressure (BP) with cardiovascular mortality in real-world settings and investigate whether that association varied by use of antihypertensive medication at baseline.

METHODS

Data from 27 728 Japanese men and women, aged 40-79 years, free of stroke, coronary heart disease, cancer, and kidney disease at entry (1988-1990) were used in this study. Mortality surveillance was completed through 2009, resulting in 449 800 person-years of follow-up. Hazard ratios for cardiovascular mortality were analysed by BP category (based on 2018 European guidelines) at admission.

RESULTS

There were 1477 deaths from cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Relative to high-normal BP at admission, the multivariable hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of CVD were 0.85 (0.69-1.04) for optimal BP; 0.96 (0.81-1.15) for normal BP; 1.26 (1.09-1.46) for Grade 1 hypertension; and 1.55 (1.31-1.84) for Grade 2-3 hypertension. A similar linear association was observed among persons not taking antihypertensive medication at admission. Among patients treated for hypertension, a U-shaped association with CVD mortality was observed; hazard ratios = 2.31 (1.25-4.27), 1.68 (1.05-2.69), 1.56 (1.10-2.22), and 1.63 (1.13-2.36), respectively. Similar patterns were observed for stroke and coronary heart disease, although not always statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

BP categories at baseline were linearly and positively associated with CVD mortality overall and also among participants not taking antihypertensive medication. A higher risk of mortality from CVD was observed among patients already treated for hypertension with optimal and normal BPs than those with high-normal BP, suggesting the importance of careful monitoring of BP and comorbidities of such patients.

Potential impact of the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline on high blood pressure in normotensive patients with stable coronary artery disease: insights from the CLARIFY registry

Aims

The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline on high blood pressure (BP) lowered the threshold defining hypertension and BP target in high-risk patients to 130/80 mmHg. Patients with coronary artery disease and systolic BP 130–139 mmHg or diastolic BP 80–89 mmHg should now receive medication to achieve this target. We aimed to investigate the relationship between BP and cardiovascular events in ‘real-life’ patients with coronary artery disease considered as having normal BP until the recent guideline.

Methods and results

Data from 5956 patients with stable coronary artery disease, no history of hypertension or heart failure, and average BP <140/90 mmHg, enrolled in the CLARIFY registry (November 2009 to June 2010), were analysed. In a multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model, after a median follow-up of 5.0 years, diastolic BP 80–89 mmHg, but not systolic BP 130–139 mmHg, was associated with increased risk of the primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio 2.15, 95% confidence interval 1.22–3.81 vs. 70–79 mmHg and 1.12, 0.64–1.97 vs. 120–129 mmHg). No significant increase in risk for the primary endpoint was observed for systolic BP <120 mmHg or diastolic BP <70 mmHg.

Conclusion

In patients with stable coronary artery disease defined as having normal BP according to the 140/90 mmHg threshold, diastolic BP 80–89 mmHg was associated with increased cardiovascular risk, whereas systolic BP 130–139 mmHg was not, supporting the lower diastolic but not the lower systolic BP hypertension-defining threshold and treatment target in coronary artery disease.

ClinicalTrials identifier

ISRCTN43070564.

[Individualising antihypertensive therapy in patients with diabetes. A guideline by the Austrian Diabetes Association (Update 2019)]

Hypertension is one of the most important comorbidities of diabetes, contributing significantly to death and leads to macrovascular and microvascular complications. When assessing the medical priorities for patients with diabetes, treating hypertension should be a primary consideration. In the present review practical approaches to hypertension in diabetes, including individualized targets for preventing specific complications are discussed according to current studies and guidelines. According to recent studies, blood pressure values of about 130/80 mm Hg are associated with the best outcome. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are the most effective drugs for treating hypertension in diabetes. Calcium antagonists or diuretics are acceptable as second-line agents. Once the target is achieved, antihypertensive drugs should be continued. Newer antidiabetic medications such as SGLT-2-inhibitors or GLP1-receptor agonists have also antihypertensive effects.