Assessment and prevention of hypoglycaemia in primary care among U.S. Veterans: a mixed methods study.

Background: Hypoglycaemia from diabetes treatment causes morbidity and lower quality of life, and prevention should be routinely addressed in clinical visits. Methods: This mixed methods study evaluated how primary care providers (PCPs) assess for and prevent hypoglycaemia by analyzing audio-recorded visits from five Veterans Affairs medical centres in the US. Two investigators independently coded visit dialogue to classify discussions of hypoglycaemia history, anticipatory guidance, and adjustments to hypoglycaemia-causing medications according to diabetes guidelines. Findings: There were 242 patients (one PCP visit per patient) and 49 PCPs. Two thirds of patients were treated with insulin and 40% with sulfonylureas. Hypoglycaemia history was discussed in 78/242 visits (32%). PCPs provided hypoglycaemia anticipatory guidance in 50 visits (21%) that focused on holding diabetes medications while fasting and carrying glucose tabs; avoiding driving and glucagon were not discussed. Hypoglycaemia-causing medications were de-intensified or adjusted more often (p < 0.001) when the patient reported a history of hypoglycaemia (15/51 visits, 29%) than when the patient reported no hypoglycaemia or it was not discussed (6/191 visits, 3%). Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was not associated with diabetes medication adjustment, and only 5/12 patients (42%) who reported hypoglycaemia with HbA1c <7.0% had medications de-intensified or adjusted. Interpretation: PCPs discussed hypoglycaemia in one-third of visits for at-risk patients and provided limited hypoglycaemia anticipatory guidance. De-intensifying or adjusting hypoglycaemia-causing medications did not occur routinely after reported hypoglycaemia with HbA1c <7.0%. Routine hypoglycaemia assessment and provision of diabetes self-management education are needed to achieve guideline-concordant hypoglycaemia prevention. Funding: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK).

Antihypertensive Medication Regimens Used in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

BACKGROUND: Describing the antihypertensive medication regimens used in the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) would contextualize the standard and intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) interventions and may inform future implementation efforts to achieve population-wide intensive SBP goals. METHODS: We included SPRINT participants with complete medication data at the prerandomization and 12-month visits. Regimens were categorized by antihypertensive medication class. Analyses were stratified by treatment group (standard goal SBP <140 mm Hg versus intensive goal SBP <120 mm Hg). RESULTS: Among 7860 participants (83.7% of 9361 randomized), the median number of classes used at the prerandomization visit was 2.0 and 2.0 in the standard and intensive groups (P=0.559). At 12-months, the median number of classes used was 3.0 and 2.0 in the intensive and standard groups (P<0.001). Prerandomization, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE), or angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy was the most common regimen in the intensive and standard groups (12.6% versus 12.2%). At 12-months, ACE/ARB monotherapy was still the most common regimen among standard group participants (14.7%) and was used by 5.3% of intensive group participants. Multidrug regimens used by the intensive and standard participants at 12 months were as follows: an ACE/ARB with thiazide (12.2% and 7.9%); an ACE/ARB with calcium channel blocker (6.2% and 6.8%); an ACE/ARB, thiazide, and calcium channel blocker (11.4% and 4.3%); and an ACE/ARB, thiazide, calcium channel blocker, and beta-blocker (6.5% and 1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: SPRINT investigators favored combining ACEs or ARBs, thiazide diuretics, and calcium channel blockers to target SBP <120 mm Hg, compared to ACE/ARB monotherapy to target SBP <140 mm Hg. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Blood Pressure Intervention and Control in SPRINT.

BACKGROUND: The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) demonstrated reductions in major cardiovascular disease events and mortality with an intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal intervention. However, a detailed description of the blood pressure intervention, antihypertensive medication usage, blood pressure levels, and rates and predictors of blood pressure control has not been reported previously. METHODS: Hypertensive participants (n=9361) 50 years and older with elevated cardiovascular disease risk were randomized 1:1 to SBP goal <120 mm Hg or SBP goal <140 mm Hg. Guideline-recommended antihypertensive medications and dosing were provided at no cost. Intensive group participants were started on at least 2 medications, and medications were adjusted monthly until SBP goal was achieved, if feasible. Standard group participants were treated to achieve SBP 135 to 139 mm Hg. RESULTS: Baseline blood pressure (median±interquartile range) was 138±19/78±16 mm Hg. For intensive group participants, percent at goal rose from 8.9% at baseline to 52.4% at 6 months and average antihypertensive medications rose from 2.2 to 2.7; SBP was <120 mm Hg in 61.6% and <130 mm Hg in 80.0% at their final visit. For the standard group participants, percent at goal rose from 53.0% at baseline to 68.6% at 6 months, while antihypertensive medications fell from 1.9 to 1.8. From 6 to 36 months, median SBP was stable at 119±14 mm Hg for intensive and 136±15 mm Hg for standard participants, with stable numbers of medications. Few predictors of SBP control were found in multiple regression models. CONCLUSIONS: These results may inform and help replicate the benefits of SPRINT in clinical practice. REGISTRATION: URL: http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Incidence and Outcomes of Acute Heart Failure With Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction in SPRINT.

BACKGROUND: In the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), intensive BP treatment reduced acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) events. Here, we report the effect on HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) and their subsequent outcomes. METHODS: Incident ADHF was defined as hospitalization or emergency department visit, confirmed, and formally adjudicated by a blinded events committee using standardized protocols. HFpEF was defined as EF ≥45%, and HFrEF was EF <45%. RESULTS: Among the 133 participants with incident ADHF who had EF assessment, 69 (52%) had HFpEF and 64 (48%) had HFrEF (P value: 0.73). During average 3.3 years follow-up in those who developed incident ADHF, rates of subsequent all-cause and HF hospital readmission and mortality were high, but there were no significant differences between those who developed HFpEF versus HFrEF. Randomization to the intensive arm had no effect on subsequent mortality or readmissions after the initial ADHF event, irrespective of EF subtype. During follow-up among participants who developed HFpEF, although relatively modest number of events limited statistical power, age was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality, and Black race independently predicted all-cause and HF hospital readmission. CONCLUSIONS: In SPRINT, intensive BP reduction decreased both acute decompensated HFpEF and HFrEF events. After initial incident ADHF, rates of subsequent hospital admission and mortality were high and were similar for those who developed HFpEF or HFrEF. Randomization to the intensive arm did not alter the risks for subsequent all-cause, or HF events in either HFpEF or HFrEF. Among those who developed HFpEF, age and Black race were independent predictors of clinical outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Control on Aortic Stiffness in the SPRINT-HEART.

[Figure: see text].

Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Control on Stroke Subtypes.

[Figure: see text].

Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering on the Risk of Atrial Fibrillation.

It remains uncertain whether intensive control of blood pressure (BP) results in a lower risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with hypertension. Using data from SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), which enrolled participants with hypertension at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, we examined whether intensive BP lowering (target systolic BP [SBP] <120 mm Hg), compared with standard BP lowering (target SBP<140 mm Hg), results in a lower risk of AF. This analysis included 8022 participants (4003 randomized to the intensive arm and 4019 to standard BP arm) who were free of AF at the time of enrollment and with available baseline and follow-up electrocardiographic data. AF was ascertained from standard 12-lead electrocardiograms recorded at biannual study examinations and an exit visit. During up to 5.2 years of follow-up and a total of 28 322 person-years, 206 incident AF cases occurred; 88 in the intensive BP-lowering arm and 118 in the standard BP-lowering arm. Intensive BP lowering was associated with a 26% lower risk of developing new AF (hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.98]; P=0.037). This effect was consistent among prespecified subgroups of SPRINT participants stratified by age, sex, race, SBP tertiles, prior cardiovascular disease, and prior chronic kidney disease when interactions between treatment effect and these subgroups were assessed using Hommel adjusted P values. In conclusion, intensive treatment to a target of SBP <120 mm Hg in patients with hypertension at high risk of cardiovascular disease has the potential to reduce the risk of AF. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Treatment Upon Erectile Function in Hypertensive Men: Findings From the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of intensive blood pressure control upon erectile function in men with hypertension, but without diabetes, is largely unknown. AIM: To examine the effects of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering on erectile function in a multiethnic clinical trial of men with hypertension. METHODS: We performed subgroup analyses from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial ([SPRINT]; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT120602, in a sample of 1255 men aged 50 years or older with hypertension and increased cardiovascular disease risk. Participants were randomly assigned to an intensive treatment group (SBP goal of <120 mmHg) or a standard treatment group (SBP goal of <140 mmHg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was change in erectile function from baseline, using the 5-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) total score, and erectile dysfunction ([ED]; defined as IIEF-5 score ≤21) after a median follow-up of 3 years. RESULTS: At baseline, roughly two-thirds (66.1%) of the sample had self-reported ED. At 48 months after randomization, we determined that the effects of more intensive blood pressure lowering were significantly moderated by race-ethnicity (p for interaction = 0.0016), prompting separate analyses stratified by race-ethnicity. In non-Hispanic whites, participants in the intensive treatment group reported slightly, but significantly better change in the IIEF-5 score than those in the standard treatment group (mean difference = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.03, 1.32; P = 0.041). In non-Hispanic blacks, participants in the intensive group reported slightly worse change in the IIEF-5 score than those in the standard group (mean difference = -1.17; 95% CI = -1.92, -0.41; P = 0.0025). However, in non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks, further adjustment for the baseline IIEF-5 score resulted in nonsignificant differences (P > 0.05) according to the treatment group. In Hispanic/other participants, there were no significant differences in change in the IIEF-5 score between the two treatment groups (P = 0.40). In a subgroup of 280 participants who did not report ED at baseline, the incidence of ED did not differ in the two treatment groups (P = 0.53) and was without interaction by race-ethnicity. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The effect of intensive treatment of blood pressure on erectile function was very small overall and likely not of great clinical magnitude. STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: Although this study included a validated measure of erectile function, testosterone, other androgen, and estrogen levels were not assessed. CONCLUSION: In a sample of male patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a SBP of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in statistically significant effects on erectile function that differed in accordance with race-ethnicity, although the clinical importance of the differences may be of small magnitude. Foy CG, Newman JC, Russell GB, et al. Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Treatment Upon Erectile Function in Hypertensive Men: Findings From the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. J Sex Med 2020;17:238-248.

Association of Total Medication Burden With Intensive and Standard Blood Pressure Control and Clinical Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT.

Total medication burden (antihypertensive and nonantihypertensive medications) may be associated with poor systolic blood pressure (SBP) control. We investigated the association of baseline medication burden and clinical outcomes and whether the effect of the SBP intervention varied according to baseline medication burden in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Participants were randomized to intensive or standard SBP goal (below 120 or 140 mm Hg, respectively); n=3769 participants with high baseline medication burden (≥5 medications) and n=5592 with low burden (<5 medications). PRIMARY OUTCOME: differences in SBP. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale and modified Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medications measured at baseline and 12 months and incident cardiovascular disease events and serious adverse events throughout the trial. Participants in the intensive group with high versus low medication burden were less likely to achieve their SBP goal at 12 months (risk ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97) but not in the standard group (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03; Pinteraction<0.001). High medication burden was associated with increased cardiovascular disease events (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.14-1.70) and serious adverse events (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.24-1.45), but the effect of intensive versus standard treatment did not vary between medication burden groups (Pinteraction>0.5). Medication burden had minimal association with adherence or satisfaction. High baseline medication burden was associated with worse intensive SBP control and higher rates of cardiovascular disease events and serious adverse events. The relative benefits and risks of intensive SBP goals were similar regardless of medication burden. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION- URL: http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Effect of Intensive and Standard Clinic-Based Hypertension Management on the Concordance Between Clinic and Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Blood Pressure Variability in SPRINT.

Background Blood pressure ( BP ) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goals of this analysis are to evaluate concordance between (1) clinic and ambulatory BP , (2) clinic visit-to-visit variability and ambulatory BP variability, and (3) first and second ambulatory BP and to evaluate whether different clinic targets affect these relationships. Methods and Results The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) ambulatory BP monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 participants at the 27-month follow-up visit and obtained a second reading in 203 participants 293±84 days afterward. There was considerable lack of agreement between clinic and daytime ambulatory systolic BP with wide limits of agreement in Bland-Altman plots of -21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and -26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. Overall, there was poor agreement between clinic visit-to-visit variability and ambulatory BP variability with correlation coefficients for systolic and diastolic BP all <0.16. We observed a high correlation between first and second ambulatory BP ; however, the limits of agreement were wide in both the intensive group (-27 to 21 mm Hg) and the standard group (-23 to 20 mm Hg). Conclusions We found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic and ambulatory BP and second ambulatory BP . Results did not differ by treatment arm. These results reinforce the need for multiple BP measurements before clinical decision making.

Impact of a Resident-Centered Interprofessional Quality Improvement Intervention on Acute Care Length of Stay.

Competency in interprofessional quality improvement and performance measurement is required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. We implemented an interprofessional quality improvement project to support trainee involvement in systems-level improvement to reduce hospital length of stay and engage trainees in efforts to improve the validity and reliability of clinical documentation contributing to risk-adjusted performance measures. The intervention had three components: daily interprofessional disposition huddles to discuss discharge needs, medical documentation curriculum to improve clinical data accuracy, and scheduled coding huddles to provide real-time feedback on documentation. Outcome measures included an unadjusted and risk-adjusted measure of hospital length of stay. Case severity index (CSI) served as a process measure. Statistical process control charts were used to measure change over time. The mean unadjusted length of stay decreased from 5.84 to 4.98 days. Both the unadjusted and the risk-adjusted length of stay measures exceeded the lower control limit of the statistical control chart. The CSI increased and exceeded the upper control limit of the statistical control chart. Improvements were sustained in the year following implementation. The intervention offers a model for academic institutions to satisfy new Common Program Requirements by engaging trainees in performance measurement and interprofessional improvement efforts.

Gender, blood pressure, and cardiovascular and renal outcomes in adults with hypertension from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

BACKGROUND: To determine if the effects of intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (goal of less than 120 mmHg) versus standard lowering (goal of less than 140 mmHg) upon cardiovascular, renal, and safety outcomes differed by gender. METHODS: Nine thousand three hundred and sixty-one men and women aged 50 years or older with systolic blood pressure of 130 mmHg or greater, taking 0-4 antihypertensive medications, and with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but free of diabetes, were randomly assigned to either a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mmHg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mmHg (standard treatment). The primary composite outcome encompassed incident myocardial infarction, heart failure, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, or cardiovascular-related death. All-cause mortality, renal outcomes, and serious adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: Compared with the standard treatment group, the primary composite outcome in the intensive treatment group was reduced by 16% [hazard ratio 0.84 (0.61-1.13)] in women, and by 27% in men [hazard ratio 0.73 (0.59-0.89), P value for interaction between treatment and gender is 0.45]. Similarly, the effect of the intensive treatment on individual components of the primary composite outcome, renal outcomes, and overall serious adverse events was not significantly different according to gender. CONCLUSION: In adults with hypertension but not with diabetes, treatment to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mmHg, compared with a goal of less than 140 mmHg, resulted in no heterogeneity of effect between men and women on cardiovascular or renal outcomes, or on rates of serious adverse events.ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.

Syncope, Hypotension, and Falls in the Treatment of Hypertension: Results from the Randomized Clinical Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine predictors of serious adverse events (SAEs) involving syncope, hypotension, and falls, with particular attention to age, in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Academic and private practices across the United States (N = 102). PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 50 and older with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 130 to 180 mmHg at high risk of cardiovascular disease events, but without diabetes, history of stroke, symptomatic heart failure or ejection fraction less than 35%, dementia, or standing SBP less than 110 mmHg (N = 9,361). INTERVENTION: Treatment of SBP to a goal of less than 120 mmHg or 140 mmHg. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were SAEs involving syncope, hypotension, and falls. Predictors were treatment assignment, demographic characteristics, comorbidities, baseline measurements, and baseline use of cardiovascular medications. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-two (1.8%) participants had SAEs involving syncope, 155 (1.6%) hypotension, and 203 (2.2%) falls. Randomization to intensive SBP control was associated with greater risk of an SAE involving hypotension (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.21-2.32, P = .002), and possibly syncope (HR = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.98-1.79, P = .07), but not falls (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.75-1.29, P = .90). Risk of all three outcomes was higher for participants with chronic kidney disease or frailty. Older age was also associated with greater risk of syncope, hypotension, and falls, but there was no age-by-treatment interaction for any of the SAE outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Participants randomized to intensive SBP control had greater risk of hypotension and possibly syncope, but not falls. The greater risk of developing these events associated with intensive treatment did not vary according to age.

Serum Bicarbonate Concentration and Cognitive Function in Hypertensive Adults.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cognitive function worsens as kidney function declines, but mechanisms contributing to this association are not completely understood. Metabolic acidosis, a common complication of CKD, leads to neural networks overexcitation and is involved in cerebral autoregulation. We aimed to evaluate the association between serum bicarbonate concentration as a measure of metabolic acidosis, and cognitive function in hypertensive adults with and without CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Five cognitive summary scores were measured (global cognitive function, executive function, memory, attention/concentration, and language) in 2853 participants in the Systolic BP Intervention Trial (SPRINT). Multivariable linear regression models adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, systolic BP, medications, eGFR and albuminuria evaluated the cross-sectional association between bicarbonate and cognition at SPRINT baseline. In a subset (n=681) who underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging, the models were adjusted for white matter hyperintensity volume, vascular reactivity, and cerebral blood flow. RESULTS: The mean age (SD) was 68 (8.5) years. Global cognitive and executive functions were positively associated with serum bicarbonate (estimate [SEM]: 0.014 [0.006]; P=0.01, and 0.018 [0.006]; P=0.003, respectively). Each 1 mEq/L lower bicarbonate level had a similar association with global cognitive and executive function as being 4.3 and 5.4 months older, respectively. The association with global cognition persisted after magnetic resonance imaging findings adjustment (estimate [SEM]: 0.03 [0.01]; P=0.01). There was no association between serum bicarbonate level and memory, attention/concentration, and language. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of hypertensive adults, higher serum bicarbonate levels were independently associated with better global cognitive and executive performance. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01206062).

Getting it RITE: Impact of a Dedicated Hospital Medicine Curriculum for Residents.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to improve resident confidence in inpatient care and knowledge in hospital medicine topics with a newly developed rotation and curriculum called the Resident Inpatient Training Experience. METHODS: This study was a prospective observational study completed by postgraduate year-2 (PGY-2) internal medicine residents in two affiliated hospitals. Forty-six PGY-2 residents each rotated on the Resident Inpatient Training Experience service for 1 month and completed a pre- and postrotation confidential online survey. Primary outcomes included confidence in managing hospitalized patients, knowledge regarding hospital medicine topics, and interest in pursuing hospital medicine as a career. RESULTS: Thirty-three PGY-2 residents completed both the pre- and postrotation survey (72% response rate). After completing the rotation, the residents' confidence level (measured on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) rose significantly in managing hospitalized patients, from 3.82 to 4.33 (P = 0.003) and in leading a ward team, from 3.76 to 4.21 (P = 0.020). Knowledge level (measured on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 = very poor and 5 = excellent) improved significantly in transitions of care, from 3.45 to 3.79 (P = 0.023); cost-conscious care, from 3.00 to 3.42 (P = 0.016); physician billing/coding, from 2.55 to 3.03 (P = 0.007); hospital metrics, from 2.39 to 2.94 (P = 0.002); and hospital reimbursement, from 2.48 to 3.09 (P = 0.001). Interest in pursuing hospital medicine as a career also increased. CONCLUSIONS: Resident independence in managing patients and training in hospital medicine topics has not kept up with evolving need. Dedicated hospital medicine rotation and curriculum are effective ways to alleviate the deficiencies in resident education.

The association between insulin resistance and atrial fibrillation: A cross-sectional analysis from SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial).

It is unclear whether metabolic syndrome (MetS) is associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) in an older population with greater cardiovascular risk, including those with chronic kidney disease. The authors investigated the association between MetS and AF in participants in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). MetS was defined based on the Modified Third National Cholesterol Education Program. The baseline prevalence rate for MetS was 55%, while 8.2% of the participants had AF. In multivariate regression analyses, AF was not associated with presence of MetS in either chronic kidney disease or non-chronic kidney disease subgroups. Age, race, history of cardiovascular diseases, decreased triglycerides, decreased pulse pressure, and albuminuria remained significantly associated with AF risk. In contrast to the general population, MetS was not associated with AF in the older population with increased cardiovascular risk studied in SPRINT.

APOL1 renal-risk variants do not associate with incident cardiovascular disease or mortality in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Relationships between apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) renal-risk variants (RRVs) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain controversial. To clarify associations between APOL1 and CVD, 2,568 African American Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) participants were assessed for the incidence of CVD events (primary composite including non-fatal myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome not resulting in myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, non-fatal acute decompensated heart failure, and CVD death), renal outcomes, and all-cause mortality. METHODS: Cox proportional hazards regression models were employed adjusting for age, sex, African ancestry proportion, and treatment group (systolic blood pressure target of <120 mm Hg versus <140 mm Hg). RESULTS: Fourteen percent of participants had two APOL1 RRVs; these individuals also had lower baseline estimated GFR and higher levels of albuminuria and BMI. After a median follow-up of 39 months, no significant association was observed between APOL1 RRVs and the primary composite CVD outcome, any of its components, or all-cause mortality (recessive or additive genetic models). APOL1 demonstrated a trend toward association with sustained 30% reduction in estimated GFR to <60 ml/min/1.73m2 in those with normal kidney function at baseline (hazard ratio [95% CI] 1.64 [0.85-2.93]; p=0.114, recessive model). CONCLUSION: APOL1 RRVs were not associated with incident CVD in high-risk hypertensive, non-diabetic African American participants in SPRINT.

Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering on Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Patients With Hypertension: SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial).

BACKGROUND: It is currently unknown whether intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering beyond that recommended would lead to more lowering of the risk of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in patients with hypertension and whether reducing the risk of LVH explains the reported cardiovascular disease (CVD) benefits of intensive BP lowering in this population. METHODS: This analysis included 8164 participants (mean age, 67.9 years; 35.3% women; 31.2% blacks) with hypertension but no diabetes mellitus from the SPRINT trial (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial): 4086 randomly assigned to intensive BP lowering (target SBP <120 mm Hg) and 4078 assigned to standard BP lowering (target SBP <140 mm Hg). Progression and regression of LVH as defined by Cornell voltage criteria derived from standard 12-lead ECGs recorded at baseline and biannually were compared between treatment arms during a median follow-up of 3.81 years. The effect of intensive (versus standard) BP lowering on the SPRINT primary CVD outcome (a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, and CVD death) was compared before and after adjustment for LVH as a time-varying covariate. RESULTS: Among SPRINT participants without baseline LVH (n=7559), intensive (versus standard) BP lowering was associated with a 46% lower risk of developing LVH (hazard ratio=0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.68). Similarly, among SPRINT participants with baseline LVH (n=605, 7.4%), those assigned to the intensive (versus standard) BP lowering were 66% more likely to regress/improve their LVH (hazard ratio=1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.11). Adjustment for LVH as a time-varying covariate did not substantially attenuate the effect of intensive BP therapy on CVD events (hazard ratio of intensive versus standard BP lowering on CVD, 0.76 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.90] and 0.77 [95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.91] before and after adjustment for LVH as a time-varying covariate, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with hypertension but no diabetes mellitus, intensive BP lowering (target systolic BP <120 mm Hg) compared with standard BP lowering (target systolic BP <140 mm Hg) resulted in lower rates of developing new LVH in those without LVH and higher rates of regression of LVH in those with existing LVH. This favorable effect on LVH did not explain most of the reduction in CVD events associated with intensive BP lowering in the SPRINT trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment on Heart Failure Events in the Systolic Blood Pressure Reduction Intervention Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) was a frequent common outcome in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). We examined whether there was differential reduction in ADHF events from intensive blood pressure [BP] treatment among the 6 key, prespecified subgroups in SPRINT: age ≥75 years, prior cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, women, black race, and 3 levels of baseline systolic BP (≤132 versus >132 to <145 versus ≥145 mm Hg). METHODS AND RESULTS: ADHF was defined as hospitalization for ADHF, confirmed and formally adjudicated by a blinded events committee using standardized protocols. At 3.29 years follow-up, there were 103 ADHF events (2.2%) among 4683 standard arm participants and 65 ADHF events (1.4%) among 4678 intensive arm participants (Cox proportional hazards ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.85; P value =0.003). In multivariable analyses, including treatment arm, baseline covariates that were significant predictors for ADHF included chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, age≥75 years, body mass index, and higher systolic BP. The beneficial effect of the intervention on incident ADHF was consistent across all prespecified subgroups. Participants who had incident ADHF had markedly increased risk of subsequent cardiovascular events, including a 27-fold increase (P<0.001) in cardiovascular death. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting a systolic BP<120 mm Hg, compared with <140 mm Hg, significantly reduced ADHF events, and the benefit was similar across all key, prespecified subgroups. Participants who developed ADHF had markedly increased risk for subsequent cardiovascular events and death, highlighting the importance of strategies aimed at prevention of ADHF, especially intensive BP reduction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.