Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering in Patients With and Patients Without Type 2 Diabetes: A Pooled Analysis From Two Randomized Trials

Association of low diastolic blood pressure with cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Reduction of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) below 70 mmHg may decrease perfusion to the heart and worsen cardiovascular (CV) outcomes.

AIMS

Explore the association between low DBP and CV outcomes.

METHODS

We searched the online databases until August 2023 for studies reporting the risk of all-cause mortality (ACM) or CV outcomes in patients with low versus normal DBP (70-80mm Hg).

RESULTS

Inclusion of 10 studies (n = 1,998,223 patients) found that a mean achieved DBP < 60 mmHg was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.48; 95 % CI [1.26-1.74]), especially in patients with pre-existing CV disease. It was also associated to a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (HR 1.84; [1.28-2.65]) and myocardial infarction (HR 1.49; [1.13-1.97]). A DBP of 60-69 mmHg was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.11; [1.03-1.20]).

CONCLUSION

Reduction of DBP, particularly below 60 mmHg, is associated with increased risk of ACM.

Diastolic and systolic blood pressure time in target range as a cardiovascular risk marker in patients with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of ACCORD BP trial

AIMS

We investigated the associations between time in target range (TTR) of blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes.

METHODS

4651 participants from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) BP trial were included in the present study. The diastolic BP target range was defined as 70 to 80 mm Hg, and the systolic as 120 to 140 mm Hg and 110 to 130 mm Hg for the standard and intensive therapy, respectively.

RESULTS

After adjusting for covariates, 1-SD increase of diastolic TTR was significantly associated with lower risks of primary outcome (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74-0.91, P < 0.001; HR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95, P = 0.0044, as well as nonfatal myocardial infarction (HR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.69-0.91, P < 0.001). Meanwhile, systolic TTR was significantly associated with various cardiovascular outcomes (P ≤ 0.016) in fully-adjusted models. The diastolic TTR sustained significance in myocardial infarction when systolic blood pressure average was higher than 120 mm Hg.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with diabetes, TTR of diastolic and systolic BP was independently associated with lower risks of major outcomes. The diastolic BP within the optimal target range was considerably important for reducing the risk of myocardial infarction, even when systolic BP was under stable control.

The Influence of baseline glycemic status on the effects of intensive blood pressure lowering: Results from the STEP randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering showed cardiovascular benefits in the Strategy of Blood Pressure Intervention in the Elderly Hypertensive Patients (STEP) trial. We investigated whether baseline glycemic status influences the effects of intensive SBP lowering on cardiovascular outcomes.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis of the STEP trial, participants were randomly assigned to receive intensive (110 to <130 mmHg) or standard SBP treatment (130 to <150 mmHg) and categorized by baseline glycemic status into three subgroups: normoglycemia, prediabetes, and diabetes. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke, acute coronary syndrome, acute decompensated heart failure, coronary revascularization, atrial fibrillation, or death from cardiovascular causes. A competing risk proportional hazards regression model was used in the analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 8,318 participants, 3,275, 2,769, and 2,274 had normoglycemia, prediabetes, and diabetes, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 3.33 years, intensive SBP lowering significantly reduced the risk of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.91). The adjusted hazard ratios for the primary outcome in the normoglycemia, prediabetes, and diabetes subgroups were 0.72 (95% CI 0.49-1.04), 0.69 (95% CI 0.46-1.02), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.56-1.15), respectively. The intensive SBP lowering strategy resulted in similar effects among participants in the three subgroups (all interaction P >0.05). The sensitivity analyses showed consistent results with the main analysis.

CONCLUSION

The effects of intensive SBP lowering on cardiovascular outcomes were consistent among participants with normoglycemia, prediabetes, and diabetes.

Time trajectories of key cardiometabolic parameters and of cardiovascular risk in subjects with diabetes in a real world setting

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Diabetes is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), lipid parameters and blood pressure are known risk factors for adverse outcome. The aim of the study was to explore the time trajectories of these key parameters and of the associated cardiovascular risk.

METHODS

We linked the diabetes electronic health records to the laboratory information system so as to investigate the trajectories of key metabolic parameters from 3 years prior to the diagnosis of diabetes to 10 years after diagnosis. We calculated the cardiovascular risk at the different time points during this period using the United Kingdom Prospective Study (UKPDS) risk engine.

RESULTS

The study included 21,288 patients. The median age at diagnosis was 56 years and 55.3% were male. There was a sharp decrease in HbA_1c after diagnosis of diabetes, but there was a progressive rise thereafter. All lipid parameters after diagnosis also improved in the year of diagnosis, and these improvements persisted even up to 10 years post-diagnosis. There was no discernible trend in mean systolic or diastolic blood pressures following diagnosis of diabetes. There was a slight decrease in the UKPDS-estimated cardiovascular risk after diagnosis of diabetes followed by a progressive increase. Estimated glomerular filtration rate declined at an average rate of 1.33 ml/min/1.73 m²/year.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that lipid control should be tightened with increasing duration of diabetes since this is more readily achievable than HbA_1c lowering and since other factors such as age and duration of diabetes are unmodifiable.

Association of low diastolic blood pressure with all-cause death among US adults with normal systolic blood pressure

Although the effect of intensive systolic blood pressure lowering is widely recognized, treatment-related low diastolic blood pressure still worrisome. This was a prospective cohort study based on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Adults (≥20 years old) with guideline-recommended blood pressure were included and pregnant women were excluded. Survey-weighted logistic regression and cox models were used for analysis. A total of 25 858 participants were included in this study. After weighted, the overall mean age of the participants was 43.17 (16.03) years, including 53.7% women and 68.1% non-Hispanic white. Numerous factors were associated with low DBP (<60 mmHg), including advanced age, heart failure, myocardial infarction, and diabetes. The use of antihypertensive drugs was also associated with lower DBP (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.26-1.83). DBP of less than 60 mmHg were associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.12-1.51) and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.00-1.79) compared to those with DBP between 70 and 80 mmHg. After regrouping, DBP <60 mmHg (no antihypertensive drugs) was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.21-1.75). DBP <60 mmHg after taking antihypertensive drugs was not associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73-1.36). Antihypertensive drug is an important factor contributing to DBP below 60 mmHg. But the pre-existing risk does not increase further with an additional reduction of DBP after antihypertensive drugs treatment.

[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.

Characteristics and molecular mechanisms through which SGLT2 inhibitors improve metabolic diseases: A mechanism review

Metabolic diseases, such as diabetes, gout and hyperlipidemia are global health challenges. Among them, diabetes has been extensively investigated. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), which is characterized by hyperglycemia, is a complex metabolic disease that is associated with various metabolic disorders. The newly developed oral hypoglycemic agent, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, has been associated with glucose-lowering effects and it affects metabolism in various ways. However, the potential mechanisms of SGLT2 inhibitors in metabolic diseases have not fully reviewed. Many of the effects beyond glycemic control must be considered off-target effects. Therefore, we reviewed the effects of SGLT2 inhibition on metabolic diseases such as obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, hyperuricemia, fatty liver disease, insulin resistance, osteoporosis and fractures. Moreover, we elucidated their molecular mechanisms to provide a theoretical basis for metabolic disease treatment.

International Guidelines for Hypertension: Resemblance, Divergence and Inconsistencies

High blood pressure is the number one killer in the world. About 1.5 billion people suffered from hypertension in 2010, and these numbers are increasing year by year. The basics of the management of high blood pressure are described in the Canadian, American, International and European guidelines for hypertension. However, there are similarities and differences in the definition, measurement and management of blood pressure between these different guidelines. According to the Canadian guidelines, normal blood pressure is less than 140/90 mmHg (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure). The AHA and ESC estimate normal blood pressure to be less than 120/80 mmHg (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure). Regarding treatments, the AHA, ISH and ESC are also in agreement about dual therapy as the first-line therapy, while Canadian recommendations retain the idea of monotherapy as the initiation of treatment. When it comes to measuring blood pressure, the four entities agree on the stratification of intervention in absolute cardiovascular risk.

Comprehensive Management of Cardiovascular Risk Factors for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in patients with diabetes. Cardiovascular disease in diabetes is multifactorial, and control of the cardiovascular risk factors leads to substantial reductions in cardiovascular events. The 2015 American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association scientific statement, "Update on Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Light of Recent Evidence," highlighted the importance of modifying various risk factors responsible for cardiovascular disease in diabetes. At the time, there was limited evidence to suggest that glucose-lowering medications reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. At present, several large randomized controlled trials with newer antihyperglycemic agents have been completed, demonstrating cardiovascular safety and reduction in cardiovascular outcomes, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure. This AHA scientific statement update focuses on (1) the evidence and clinical utility of newer antihyperglycemic agents in improving glycemic control and reducing cardiovascular events in diabetes; (2) the impact of blood pressure control on cardiovascular events in diabetes; and (3) the role of newer lipid-lowering therapies in comprehensive cardiovascular risk management in adults with diabetes. This scientific statement addresses the continued importance of lifestyle interventions, pharmacological therapy, and surgical interventions to curb the epidemic of obesity and metabolic syndrome, important precursors of prediabetes, diabetes, and comorbid cardiovascular disease. Last, this scientific statement explores the critical importance of the social determinants of health and health equity in the continuum of care in diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Management of hypertension and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade in adults with diabetic kidney disease: Association of British Clinical Diabetologists and the Renal Association UK guideline update 2021

People with type 1 and type 2 diabetes are at risk of developing progressive chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney failure. Hypertension is a major, reversible risk factor in people with diabetes for development of albuminuria, impaired kidney function, end-stage kidney disease and cardiovascular disease. Blood pressure control has been shown to be beneficial in people with diabetes in slowing progression of kidney disease and reducing cardiovascular events. However, randomised controlled trial evidence differs in type 1 and type 2 diabetes and different stages of CKD in terms of target blood pressure. Activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is an important mechanism for the development and progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease. Randomised trials demonstrate that RAAS blockade is effective in preventing/ slowing progression of CKD and reducing cardiovascular events in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, albeit differently according to the stage of CKD. Emerging therapy with sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, non-steroidal selective mineralocorticoid antagonists and endothelin-A receptor antagonists have been shown in randomised trials to lower blood pressure and further reduce the risk of progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes. This guideline reviews the current evidence and makes recommendations about blood pressure control and the use of RAAS-blocking agents in different stages of CKD in people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Establishing target systolic and diastolic blood pressure in diabetic patients with hypertension: what do we need to consider?

INTRODUCTION

The optimum target for systolic and diastolic blood pressure remains divisive. In particular, the conflicting outcomes of the SPRINT and ACCORD trials have led to a divergence of guideline-recommended blood pressure targets for adults with diabetes.

AREAS COVERED

Here, we review the existing recommendations for blood pressure targets in diabetes, discussing the evidence base behind them and their limitations. We start by outlining the risks and benefits of lower systolic blood pressure targets among diabetics. We then follow with a separate appraisal of diastolic blood pressure targets, which necessitates examination of the 'J curve' and isolated diastolic hypertension.

EXPERT OPINION

Current and emerging evidence supports, on balance, a blood pressure therapeutic target of < 130/90 mmHg in adults at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, including diabetics. Whether certain diabetics with systolic BPs of 120-130 and/or diastolic BPs 80-90 mmHg require drug treatment to a target of <120/80 mmHg is less clear and requires more research.

Time to cardiovascular benefits of empagliflozin: a post hoc observation from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial

Aims

In the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME trial, in patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease, empagliflozin vs. placebo reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) by 35%, CV death/HHF by 34%, and CV death by 38%, with an early separation of the cumulative incidence curves. We explored at what time point after randomization these benefits became apparent.

Methods and results

We expressed time trajectories for the effect of pooled empagliflozin doses vs. placebo on HHF, CV death/HHF, and CV death based on hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) and calculated the hazard ratio on the day the effect reached significance using Cox proportional hazards models. Overall, 7020 patients aged ≥18 years were treated with empagliflozin 10 mg (N = 2345), empagliflozin 25 mg (N = 2342), or placebo (N = 2333) once daily in addition to standard of care. Mean age (years ± SD) was 63.1 ± 8.6, and 72% were male. The benefit of empagliflozin on CV death first reached statistical significance on Day 59 (HR [95% confidence interval]) (0.28 [0.08, 0.96], P = 0.0424) and was generally sustained throughout the trial (overall 0.62 [0.49, 0.77], P < 0.0001). Risk reduction with empagliflozin on HHF reached statistical significance on Day 17 (0.10 [0.01, 0.87], P = 0.0372) and was sustained throughout the study (overall 0.65 [0.50, 0.85], P = 0.0017). For the composite outcome of CV death or HHF, risk reduction with empagliflozin reached statistical significance on Day 27 (0.28 [0.08, 0.97], P = 0.0445) and was sustained throughout follow‐up (overall 0.66 [0.55, 0.79], P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

In EMPA‐REG OUTCOME, the benefit of empagliflozin in reducing the risk of HHF, CV death/HHF, and CV death emerged within weeks after treatment initiation. The earliest benefit appears to be on HHF.

Global epidemiology, health burden and effective interventions for elevated blood pressure and hypertension

High blood pressure is one of the most important risk factors for ischaemic heart disease, stroke, other cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease and dementia. Mean blood pressure and the prevalence of raised blood pressure have declined substantially in high-income regions since at least the 1970s. By contrast, blood pressure has risen in East, South and Southeast Asia, Oceania and sub-Saharan Africa. Given these trends, the prevalence of hypertension is now higher in low-income and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. In 2015, an estimated 8.5 million deaths were attributable to systolic blood pressure >115 mmHg, 88% of which were in low-income and middle-income countries. Measures such as increasing the availability and affordability of fresh fruits and vegetables, lowering the sodium content of packaged and prepared food and staples such as bread, and improving the availability of dietary salt substitutes can help lower blood pressure in the entire population. The use and effectiveness of hypertension treatment vary substantially across countries. Factors influencing this variation include a country's financial resources, the extent of health insurance and health facilities, how frequently people interact with physicians and non-physician health personnel, whether a clear and widely adopted clinical guideline exists and the availability of medicines. Scaling up treatment coverage and improving its community effectiveness can substantially reduce the health burden of hypertension.

10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

SGLT2 inhibitors, sodium and off-target effects: an overview

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are a relatively new class of antidiabetic drugs that in addition to emerging as an effective antihyperglycemic treatment have been shown to improve, in several trials, both renal and cardiovascular outcomes. In consideration of the renal site of action and the associated osmotic diuresis, a negative sodium balance has been postulated during SGLT2i administration. Actually, sodium and water depletion may contribute to some positive actions of SGLT2i but evidence is far from being conclusive and the real physiologic effects of SGLT2i on sodium remain largely unknown. Indeed, no study has yet investigated how SGLT2i change sodium balance in the long term and especially the pathways through which the natriuretic effect is expressed. Furthermore, several experimental studies have recently identified different pathways, not directly linked to tubular sodium handling, which could contribute to the renal and cardiovascular benefits associated with SGLT2i. This paper will review the evidence of SGLT2i action on sodium transporters, their off-target effects and their potential role on kidney protection.

Optimal management of blood glucose, blood pressure and atrial fibrillation to reduce the risk of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), hypertension, and atrial fibrillation (AF) are risk factors for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This study examined the effects of the simultaneous control of all 3 conditions on the new-onset HFpEF in this population.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study enrolled 552 patients with T2DM, hypertension and AF, but without clinical signs or symptoms of heart failure. The participants were followed up for 5 years to examine the effects of glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c: < 7.0%, 7.0%-8.0% and > 8.0%), blood pressure (BP) control (systolic BP: <120 mmHg, 120-140 mmHg and >140 mmHg) or rhythm versus rate control for AF on new-onset HFpEF.

RESULTS

With a follow-up of 5 years, the new-onset HFpEF occurred in 62 of 552 enrolled participants. Among the different control level for diabetes, hypertension and AF, the intensive blood glucose (BG) control, poor BP control and rate control of AF had the highest risk of new-onset HFpEF, and the conservative BG control, intensive BP control and rhythm control of AF had the lowest risk of new-onset HFpEF. Multivariable cox regression analysis showed that both poor BP control (HR: 1.421 95% CI: 1.013-1.992, P=0.042) and rate control of AF (HR: 1.362 95% CI: 1.006-1.821, P=0.033) were independently associated with the development of new-onset HFpEF.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that, besides intensive BP control, conservative BG control and rhythm control of AF were crucial factors to delay the progression of HFpEF among patients with T2DM, hypertension and AF. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Initial Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Decline and Long-Term Renal Function During Intensive Antihypertensive Therapy: A Post Hoc Analysis of the SPRINT and ACCORD-BP Randomized Controlled Trials

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.

10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Effects of Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Lowering on Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus on Standard Glycemic Control and in Those Without Diabetes Mellitus: Reconciling Results From ACCORD BP and SPRINT

Background

Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering significantly reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) but not in ACCORD BP (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure).

Methods and Results

SPRINT tested the effects of intensive (<120 mm Hg) versus standard (<140 mm Hg) SBP goals on CVD events and all‐cause mortality. Using 2×2 factorial design, ACCORD BP tested the same SBP intervention in addition to an intensive versus standard glycemia intervention. We compared the effects of intensive SBP lowering on the composite CVD end point and all‐cause mortality in SPRINT with its effects within each of the glycemia arms in ACCORD BP. Intensive SBP lowering decreased the hazard of the composite CVD end point similarly in SPRINT (hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.64–0.89) and in the ACCORD BP standard glycemia arm (hazard ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63–0.95; interaction P=0.87). However, the effect of intensive SBP lowering on the composite CVD end point in the ACCORD BP intensive glycemia arm (hazard ratio: 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.83–1.29) was significantly different from SPRINT (interaction P=0.023). Patterns were similar for all‐cause mortality.

Conclusions

The effects of intensive SBP control on CVD events and all‐cause mortality were similar in patients without diabetes mellitus and in those with diabetes mellitus on standard glycemic control. An interaction between intensive SBP lowering and intensive glycemic control may have masked beneficial effects of intensive SBP lowering in ACCORD BP.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01206062, NCT00000620.

Thiazide Use and Cardiovascular Events in Type 2 Diabetic Patients With Well-Controlled Blood Pressure

Evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of thiazides in patients with well-controlled and relatively low blood pressure (BP) is lacking. This study aimed to assess whether thiazide use is effective and safe in type 2 diabetic patients with well-controlled BP and whether intensive BP control leads to decreased risk of cardiovascular events depending on thiazide use. We performed an observational cohort study using data from the ACCORD study (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which was a composite end point including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Hazard ratios for primary and secondary outcomes with 95% CIs were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models. We included 10 011 type 2 diabetic patients. The overall mean follow-up period was 7.7 years, and 1776 patients experienced MACE. Mean systolic BP at baseline in patients taking and not taking thiazides was 137.2 and 135.7 mm Hg, respectively. Thiazide use was associated with increased risk of MACE, particularly stroke (hazard ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.18-1.88]). In addition, thiazide use was significantly associated with higher risks of MACE and stroke in patients receiving intensive BP control but not in those receiving standard BP control. Similar associations were observed in analyses using propensity score matching. Intensive BP control reduced the risks of MACE and stroke in patients not taking thiazides but not in patients taking thiazides. Thiazide use may be harmful in type 2 diabetic patients with relatively low BP.

[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.

Effect of intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure treatment on heart failure events: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

We performed this meta-analysis to assess the association between intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP)-lowering strategies and heart failure (HF). A comprehensive literature review was conducted using English and Chinese databases from their origination through April 2018. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. Nine randomized controlled trials including a total of 39,936 hypertensive patients were ultimately included in our meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of these nine trials showed that a treatment target of SBP ≤140 mmHg was associated with a significant reduction in HF risk (RR: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.62-0.87). Furthermore, the pooled analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials indicated a significant association between intensive lowering of SBP and HF risk (RR: 0.75, 95%CI: 0.62-0.90) and showed that intensive lowering of SBP could decrease risk of HF in patients without diabetes mellitus (RR: 0.69, 95%CI: 0.52-0.91) and in those ≥65 years old (RR: 0.72, 95%CI: 0.56-0.93), but this finding was not shown for patients with diabetes mellitus (RR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.56-1.19) or in those <65 years old (RR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.56-1.19). When intensive lowering of SBP achieved an SBP ≤ 120 mmHg, a pooled analysis indicated a positive association between SBP and HF risk (RR: 0.75, 95%CI: 0.63-0.89), and a pooled analyses showed that intensive lowering of SBP could decrease risk of HF in patients without diabetes mellitus (RR: 0.71, 95%CI: 0.51-0.98) and in those ≥65 years old (RR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.58-0.98); however, this result was not found for patients with diabetes mellitus (RR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.56-1.19) or those <65 years old (RR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.56-1.19). The existing data support the results of a positive association between intensive SBP-lowering treatment and HF risk, especially for those patients without diabetes and those older than 65 years. However, additional prospective studies are still needed to confirm these associations.

KDOQI US Commentary on the 2017 ACC/AHA Hypertension Guideline

Hypertension is a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and reduction of elevated blood pressure (BP) remains an important intervention for slowing kidney disease progression. Over the past decade, the most appropriate BP target for initiation and titration of BP-lowering medications has been an area of intense research and debate within the clinical community. In 2017, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) in conjunction with several other professional societies released new hypertension guidelines based on data from a systematic review of clinical trials and observational data. While many of the recommendations in the ACC/AHA hypertension guideline are relevant to nephrology practice, BP targets and management strategies for patients receiving dialysis are not discussed. This Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) commentary focuses largely on recommendations from the ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines that are pertinent to individuals at risk of chronic kidney disease or with non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease. This KDOQI commentary also includes a brief discussion of the consensus statement regarding hypertension diagnosis and management for adults receiving maintenance dialysis published by the European Renal and Cardiovascular Medicine Working Group of the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) and the Hypertension and the Kidney working group of the European Society of Hypertension. Overall, we support the vast majority of the ACC/AHA recommendations and highlight select areas in which best diagnosis and treatment options remain controversial.

10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

A Comparison of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Guideline and the 2017 American Diabetes Association Diabetes and Hypertension Position Statement for U.S. Adults With Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To determine the concordance in the prevalence of hypertension and pharmacological antihypertensive treatment recommendations for U.S. adults with diabetes using definitions from the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) blood pressure (BP) guideline and the 2017 American Diabetes Association (ADA) diabetes and hypertension position statement.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed data for U.S. adults with diabetes in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2011-2016 (n = 2,266). Diabetes was defined by treatment with glucose-lowering medication, glycosylated hemoglobin ≥6.5%, fasting serum glucose ≥126 mg/dL, or nonfasting serum glucose ≥200 mg/dL. BP was measured three times and antihypertensive medication use was self-reported.

RESULTS

The prevalence (95% CI) of hypertension among U.S. adults with diabetes was 77.1% (73.9, 80.0) and 66.3% (63.4, 69.1) according to the ACC/AHA and ADA definitions, respectively. Also, 22.9% (20.0, 26.1) did not have hypertension according to either definition, and the concordance in hypertension status was 89.2% (87.2, 91.0). Among U.S. adults with diabetes not taking antihypertensive medication, 52.8% (47.7, 57.8) were not recommended to initiate antihypertensive medication by either the ACC/AHA or the ADA document and 22.4% (19.2, 25.9) were recommended to initiate it by both documents (overall concordance 75.2% [70.4, 79.4]). Among those taking antihypertensive medication, 45.3% (41.3, 49.4) and 50.4% (46.5, 54.2) had BP above the goal in neither and both documents, respectively (overall concordance 95.7% [93.4, 97.2]).

CONCLUSIONS

A high percentage of U.S. adults with diabetes are provided identical antihypertensive treatment recommendations by the ACC/AHA BP guideline and the ADA diabetes and hypertension position statement.

Effects of High Blood Pressure on Cardiovascular Disease Events Among Chinese Adults With Different Glucose Metabolism

OBJECTIVE

To investigate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks caused by blood pressure (BP) of 130-139/80-89 mmHg among Chinese adults with different glucose metabolism.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A prospective population-based cohort of 2,132 adults in Shanghai was established in 2002, and CVD information was collected during 10.9 years of follow-up. After assessing the association between BP categories and incident CVD, we analyzed the risk for CVD by blood glucose categories and BP categories combined by using multiple Cox regression analysis among 1,419 participants at follow-up.

RESULTS

The corresponding incidence of CVD per 1,000 person-years for the BP <130/80 mmHg, 130-139/80-89 mmHg, and ≥140/90 mmHg or treated groups were 3.0, 6.0, and 13.9, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, and other factors, BP ≥140/90 mmHg was significantly associated with a higher CVD risk in general (hazard ratio 2.68 [95% CI 1.36-5.25]) and in various blood glucose categories (normoglycemia 2.59, prediabetes 3.03, diabetes mellitus [DM] 4.98). However, BP of 130-139/80-89 mmHg was significantly associated with a higher CVD risk in an estimated baseline 10-year atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk ≥10% (3.82 [1.42-9.78]) or DM (3.54 [1.05-11.88]) but not in the general population or for a baseline 10-year ASCVD risk <10%, normoglycemia, or prediabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

BP of 130-139/80-89 mmHg may result in a significantly higher CVD risk in Chinese adults with an estimated 10-year ASCVD risk ≥10% or DM but not in those with normoglycemia or prediabetes.

Benefits of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Receiving Standard but Not Intensive Glycemic Control

This study aimed to assess whether intensive blood pressure (BP) treatment has benefits in preventing cardiovascular events, including heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Using the ACCORD BP trial (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure) data, hazard ratios for cardiovascular events with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard models to compare the time to the first cardiovascular event in patients receiving standard (n=2362) or intensive glycemic control (n=2371). The overall mean follow-up period was 4.5 years, and cardiovascular events were confirmed in 528 patients. The cardiovascular event risk in patients receiving standard glycemic control was significantly lower in the intensive BP treatment group than in the standard BP treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.90; P=0.005), whereas that in patients receiving intensive glycemic control did not differ significantly between the groups (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.36; P=0.61). There was a significant interaction between the BP treatment strategy and glycemic control (P=0.02). The stroke risk in patients receiving standard glycemic control was significantly lower in the intensive BP treatment group, but not in patients receiving intensive glycemic control. Although not significant, all-cause mortality in patients receiving intensive glycemic control was higher in patients receiving intensive BP treatment than in those receiving standard BP treatment (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.92; P=0.05). Benefits of intensive BP treatment were observed only in ACCORD BP participants receiving standard glycemic control without additional risk factors.

Intensive systolic blood pressure control and incident chronic kidney disease in people with and without diabetes mellitus: secondary analyses of two randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Guidelines, including the 2017 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association blood pressure guideline, recommend tighter control of systolic blood pressure in people with type 2 diabetes. However, it is unclear whether intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure increases the incidence of chronic kidney disease in this population. We aimed to compare the effects of intensive systolic blood pressure control on incident chronic kidney disease in people with and without type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) tested the effects of a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive intervention) versus a goal of less than 140 mm Hg (standard intervention) in people without diabetes. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) blood pressure trial tested a similar systolic blood pressure intervention in people with type 2 diabetes. Our study is a secondary analysis of limited access datasets from SPRINT and the ACCORD trial obtained from the National Institutes of Health. In participants without chronic kidney disease at baseline (n=4311 in the ACCORD trial; n=6715 in SPRINT), we related systolic blood pressure interventions (intensive vs standard) to incident chronic kidney disease (defined as >30% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] to <60 mL/min per 1·73 m2). These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01206062 (SPRINT) and NCT00000620 (ACCORD trial).

FINDINGS

The average difference in systolic blood pressure between intensive and standard interventions was 13·9 mm Hg (95% CI 13·4-14·4) in the ACCORD trial and 15·2 mm Hg (14·8-15·6) in SPRINT. At 3 years, the cumulative incidence of chronic kidney disease in the ACCORD trial was 10·0% (95% CI 8·8-11·4) with the intensive intervention and 4·1% (3·3-5·1) with the standard intervention (absolute risk difference 5·9%, 95% CI 4·3-7·5). Corresponding values in SPRINT were 3·5% (95% CI 2·9-4·2) and 1·0% (0·7-1·4; absolute risk difference 2·5%, 95% CI 1·8-3·2). The absolute risk difference was significantly higher in the ACCORD trial than in SPRINT (p=0·0001 for interaction).

INTERPRETATION

Intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure increased the risk of incident chronic kidney disease in people with and without type 2 diabetes. However, the absolute risk of incident chronic kidney disease was higher in people with type 2 diabetes. Our findings suggest the need for vigilance in monitoring kidney function during intensive antihypertensive drug treatment, particularly in adults with diabetes. Long-term studies are needed to understand the clinical implications of antihypertensive treatment-related reductions in eGFR.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health.

Effect of intensive blood pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus over 9 years of follow-up: A subgroup analysis of high-risk ACCORDION trial participants

Although guidelines recommend strict blood pressure (BP) control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and elevated cardiovascular risk, the long-term effects of this approach are unknown. We investigated the effect of intensive BP control on clinical outcomes in patients with T2DM over 9 years of follow-up. We included Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes - Blood Pressure participants in the standard glucose control arm who had established cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, were ≥75 years of age or who had a 10-year coronary heart risk ≥15%. Participants were randomized to either intensive (systolic BP < 120 mm Hg) or standard (systolic BP < 140 mm Hg) BP control for an average of 5 years. Observational follow-up occurred for an average of 4 years thereafter. After an average total follow-up of 9 years, intensive BP control reduced the composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke by 25% (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.95; P = .02). The overall benefit was driven by a reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction (P = .01). In this post-hoc analysis, the benefits of a fixed-duration intensive BP control intervention in patients with T2DM persisted throughout 9 years of follow-up.

Diabetes and Hypertension: Clinical Update

The presence of hypertension in individuals with type 2 diabetes augments the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In this regard, data support that management of hypertension in this high-risk population is a critical risk reduction strategy. In recent years, a number of work groups have redefined hypertension, management strategies, and targets. In this context, there is still considerable discussion on an appropriate target for blood pressure in the diabetic population. However, despite this discussion on target blood pressure, it is widely recognized that there is considerable residual risk for heightened cardiovascular events in the hypertensive, diabetic population despite widespread awareness and treatment. There has been increasing interest in management strategies for blood pressure reduction in this high-risk population that complement traditional antihypertensive agents. Large-scale clinical trials have shown that hypoglycemic agents can complement blood pressure reduction and have a favorable effect on cardiovascular outcomes such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. In the diabetic population, consideration should be given to the blood pressure lowering effects of the newer hypoglycemic agents when working toward additional glycemic control in patients with hypertension.