Chlorthalidone vs. Hydrochlorothiazide for Hypertension-Cardiovascular Events.

BACKGROUND: Whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide for preventing major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension is unclear. METHODS: In a pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned adults 65 years of age or older who were patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs health system and had been receiving hydrochlorothiazide at a daily dose of 25 or 50 mg to continue therapy with hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to chlorthalidone at a daily dose of 12.5 or 25 mg. The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure resulting in hospitalization, urgent coronary revascularization for unstable angina, and non-cancer-related death. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 13,523 patients underwent randomization. The mean age was 72 years. At baseline, hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 25 mg per day had been prescribed in 12,781 patients (94.5%). The mean baseline systolic blood pressure in each group was 139 mm Hg. At a median follow-up of 2.4 years, there was little difference in the occurrence of primary-outcome events between the chlorthalidone group (702 patients [10.4%]) and the hydrochlorothiazide group (675 patients [10.0%]) (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.16; P = 0.45). There were no between-group differences in the occurrence of any of the components of the primary outcome. The incidence of hypokalemia was higher in the chlorthalidone group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group (6.0% vs. 4.4%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large pragmatic trial of thiazide diuretics at doses commonly used in clinical practice, patients who received chlorthalidone did not have a lower occurrence of major cardiovascular outcome events or non-cancer-related deaths than patients who received hydrochlorothiazide. (Funded by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02185417.).

Final Report of a Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

BACKGROUND: In a previously reported randomized trial of standard and intensive systolic blood-pressure control, data on some outcome events had yet to be adjudicated and post-trial follow-up data had not yet been collected. METHODS: We randomly assigned 9361 participants who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease but did not have diabetes or previous stroke to adhere to an intensive treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <140 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Additional primary outcome events occurring through the end of the intervention period (August 20, 2015) were adjudicated after data lock for the primary analysis. We also analyzed post-trial observational follow-up data through July 29, 2016. RESULTS: At a median of 3.33 years of follow-up, the rate of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality during the trial were significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (rate of the primary outcome, 1.77% per year vs. 2.40% per year; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.86; all-cause mortality, 1.06% per year vs. 1.41% per year; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92). Serious adverse events of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, acute kidney injury or failure, and syncope were significantly more frequent in the intensive-treatment group. When trial and post-trial follow-up data were combined (3.88 years in total), similar patterns were found for treatment benefit and adverse events; however, rates of heart failure no longer differed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who were at increased cardiovascular risk, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality than targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg, both during receipt of the randomly assigned therapy and after the trial. Rates of some adverse events were higher in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

Strategies for secondary use of real-world clinical and administrative data for outcome ascertainment in pragmatic clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials are gaining popularity as a cost-effective way to examine treatment effectiveness and generate timely comparative evidence. Incorporating supplementary real-world data is recommended for robust outcome monitoring. However, detailed operational guidelines are needed to inform effective use and integration of heterogeneous databases. OBJECTIVE: Lessons learned from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) are reviewed, providing adaptable recommendations to capture clinical outcomes from real-world data. METHODS: Non-cancer deaths and major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes were determined using VA, Medicare, and National Death Index (NDI) data. Multiple ascertainment strategies were applied, including claims-based algorithms, natural language processing, and systematic chart review. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 2.4 (SD = 1.4) years, 907 CV events were identified within the VA healthcare system. Slight delays (∼1 year) were expected in obtaining Medicare data. An additional 298 patients were found having a CV event outside of the VA in 2016 - 2021, increasing the CV event rate from 3.5 % to 5.7 % (770 of 13,523 randomized). NDI data required âˆ¼2 years waiting period. Such inclusion did not increase the number of deaths identified (all 894 deaths were captured by VA data) but enhanced the accuracy in determining cause of death. CONCLUSION: Our experience supports the recommendation of integrating multiple data sources to improve clinical outcome ascertainment. While this approach is promising, hierarchical data aggregation is required when facing different acquisition timelines, information availability/completeness, coding practice, and system configurations. It may not be feasible to implement comparable applications and solutions to studies conducted under different constraints and practice. The recommendations provide guidance and possible action plans for researchers who are interested in applying cross-source data to ascertain all study outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness of Medication Therapy Management Program Across Racial and Ethnic Groups Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: Equity and effectiveness of the medication therapy management (MTM) program in Medicare has been a policy focus since its inception. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Medicare MTM program in improving medication utilization quality across racial and ethnic groups. METHODS: This study analyzed 2017 Medicare data linked to the Area Health Recourses File. A propensity score was used to match MTM enrollees and nonenrollees, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between the 2 groups was calculated. Effectiveness was measured as the proportion of appropriate medication utilization based on medication utilization measures developed by Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Net monetary benefits were compared across racial and ethnic groups at various societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. The 95% confidence intervals were obtained by nonparametric bootstrapping. RESULTS: MTM dominated non-MTM among the total sample (N = 699 992), as MTM enrollees had lower healthcare costs ($31 135.89 vs $32 696.69) and higher proportions of appropriate medication utilization (87.47% vs 85.31%) than nonenrollees. MTM enrollees had both lower medication costs ($10 681.21 vs $11 003.08) and medical costs ($20 454.68 vs $21 693.61) compared with nonenrollees. The cost-effectiveness of MTM was higher among Black patients than White patients across the WTP thresholds. For instance, at a WTP of $3006 per percentage point increase in effectiveness, the net monetary benefit for Black patients was greater than White patients by $2334.57 (95% confidence interval $1606.53-$3028.85). CONCLUSIONS: MTM is cost-effective in improving medication utilization quality among Medicare beneficiaries and can potentially reduce disparities between Black and White patients. Expansion of the current MTM program could maximize these benefits.

Practical issues in pragmatic trials: the implementation of the Diuretic Comparison Project.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The US Department of Veterans Affairs Point of Care Clinical Trial Program conducts studies that utilize informatics infrastructure to integrate clinical trial protocols into routine care delivery. The Diuretic Comparison Project compared hydrochlorothiazide to chlorthalidone in reduction of major cardiovascular events in subjects with hypertension. Here we describe the cultural, technical, regulatory, and logistical challenges and solutions that enabled successful implementation of this large pragmatic comparative effectiveness Point of Care clinical trial. METHODS: Patients were recruited from 72 Veterans Affairs Healthcare Systems using centralized processes for subject identification, obtaining informed consent, data collection, safety monitoring, site communication, and endpoint identification with minimal perturbation of the local clinical care ecosystem. Patients continued to be managed exclusively by their clinical care providers without protocol specified study visits, treatment recommendations, or data collection extraneous to routine care. Centralized study processes were operationalized through the application layer of the electronic health record via a data coordinating center staffed by clinical nurses, data scientists, and statisticians without site-based research coordinators. Study data was collected from the Veterans Affairs electronic health record supplemented by Medicare and National Death Index data. RESULTS: The study exceeded its enrolled goal (13,523 subjects) and followed subjects for the 5-year study duration. The key determinant of program success was collaboration between researchers, regulators, clinicians, and administrative staff at the site level to customize study procedures to align with local clinical practice. This flexibility was enabled by designation of the study as minimal risk and determination that clinical care providers were not engaged in research by the Veterans Affairs Central Institutional Review Board. Cultural, regulatory, technical, and logistical problems were identified and solved through iterative collaboration between clinical and research entities. Paramount among these problems was customization of the Veterans Affairs electronic health record and data systems to accommodate study procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Leveraging clinical care for large-scale clinical trials is feasible but requires a rethinking of traditional clinical trial design (and regulation) to better meet requirements of clinical care ecosystems. Study designs must accommodate site-specific practice variation to reduce the impact on clinical care. A tradeoff thus exists between designing trial processes tailored to expedite local study implementation versus those to produce a more refined response to the research question. The availability of a uniform and flexible electronic health record in the Department of Veterans Affairs played a major role in the success of the trial. Conducting Point of Care research in other healthcare systems without such research-friendly infrastructure presents a more formidable challenge.

Orthostatic Hypotension, Hypertension Treatment, and Cardiovascular Disease: An Individual Participant Meta-Analysis.

Importance: There are ongoing concerns about the benefits of intensive vs standard blood pressure (BP) treatment among adults with orthostatic hypotension or standing hypotension. Objective: To determine the effect of a lower BP treatment goal or active therapy vs a standard BP treatment goal or placebo on cardiovascular disease (CVD) or all-cause mortality in strata of baseline orthostatic hypotension or baseline standing hypotension. Data Sources: Individual participant data meta-analysis based on a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases through May 13, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized trials of BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) with orthostatic hypotension assessments. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual participant data meta-analysis extracted following PRISMA guidelines. Effects were determined using Cox proportional hazard models using a single-stage approach. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were CVD or all-cause mortality. Orthostatic hypotension was defined as a decrease in systolic BP of at least 20 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP of at least 10 mm Hg after changing position from sitting to standing. Standing hypotension was defined as a standing systolic BP of 110 mm Hg or less or standing diastolic BP of 60 mm Hg or less. Results: The 9 trials included 29 235 participants followed up for a median of 4 years (mean age, 69.0 [SD, 10.9] years; 48% women). There were 9% with orthostatic hypotension and 5% with standing hypotension at baseline. More intensive BP treatment or active therapy lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among those without baseline orthostatic hypotension (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.86) similarly to those with baseline orthostatic hypotension (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .68 for interaction of treatment with baseline orthostatic hypotension). More intensive BP treatment or active therapy lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among those without baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85), and nonsignificantly among those with baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.18). Effects did not differ by baseline standing hypotension (P = .16 for interaction of treatment with baseline standing hypotension). Conclusions and Relevance: In this population of hypertension trial participants, intensive therapy reduced risk of CVD or all-cause mortality regardless of orthostatic hypotension without evidence for different effects among those with standing hypotension.

A novel kidney disease index reflecting both the albumin-to-creatinine ratio and estimated glomerular filtration rate, predicted cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) are risk factors for diabetes-related outcomes. A composite that captures information from both may provide a simpler way of assessing risk. METHODS: 9115 of 9901 Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) participants with both an ACR and eGFR at baseline were included in this post hoc epidemiologic analysis. The hazard of higher baseline levels of 1/eGFR and natural log transformed ACR (calculated as ln [ACR × 100] to eliminate negative values) and their interaction for incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), kidney outcomes, and deaths was estimated. The hazard of the geometric mean of these two baseline measures (the kidney disease index or KDI) was also assessed. RESULTS: A non-linear relationship was observed between 1/eGFR and all three outcomes, and between ln [ACR × 100] and the kidney outcome. There was also a negative interaction between these two risk factors with respect to MACE and death. Conversely, a linear relationship was noted between the KDI and all three outcomes. People in the highest KDI fifth experienced the highest incidence of MACE, death, and the kidney outcome (4.43, 4.56, and 5.55/100 person-years respectively). C statistics for the KDI were similar to those for eGFR and albuminuria. CONCLUSIONS: The KDI combines the baseline eGFR and ACR into a novel composite risk factor that has a simple linear relationship with incident serious outcomes in people with diabetes and additional CV risk factors. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT01394952.

Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Lowering and Days Free of Cardiovascular Events and Serious Adverse Events: a Post Hoc Analysis of Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

BACKGROUND: Communication of the benefits and harms of blood pressure lowering strategy is crucial for shared decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure lowering in terms of the number of event-free days DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial PARTICIPANTS: A total of 9361 adults 50 years or older without diabetes or stroke who had a systolic blood pressure of 130-180 mmHg and elevated cardiovascular risk INTERVENTIONS: Intensive (systolic blood pressure goal <120 mmHg) versus standard blood pressure lowering (<140 mmHg) MAIN MEASURES: Days free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), serious adverse events (SAE), and monitored adverse events (hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, electrolyte abnormalities, injurious falls, or acute kidney injury) over a median follow-up of 3.33 years KEY RESULTS: The intensive treatment group gained 14.7 more MACE-free days over 4 years (difference, 14.7 [95% confidence interval: 5.1, 24.4] days) than the standard treatment group. The benefit of the intensive treatment varied by cognitive function (normal: difference, 40.7 [13.0, 68.4] days; moderate-to-severe impairment: difference, -15.0 [-56.5, 26.4] days; p-for-interaction=0.009) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -22.7 [-51.5, 6.1] days; poor: difference, 156.1 [31.1, 281.2] days; p-for-interaction=0.001). The mean overall SAE-free days were not significantly different between the treatments (difference, -14.8 [-35.3, 5.7] days). However, the intensive treatment group had 28.5 fewer monitored adverse event-free days than the standard treatment group (difference, -28.5 [-40.3, -16.7] days), with significant variations by frailty status (non-frail: difference, 38.8 [8.4, 69.2] days; frail: difference, -15.5 [-46.6, 15.7] days) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -12.9 [-45.5, 19.7] days; poor: difference, 180.6 [72.9, 288.4] days; p-for-interaction <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Over 4 years, intensive systolic blood pressure lowering provides, on average, 14.7 more MACE-free days than standard treatment, without any difference in SAE-free days. Whether this time-based effect summary improves shared decision-making remains to be elucidated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT01206062.

Dulaglutide and incident atrial fibrillation or flutter in patients with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis from the REWIND randomized trial.

AIM: To assess the occurrence of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (atrial arrhythmias [AA]) in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide versus placebo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients without electrocardiographic (ECG)-confirmed AA at baseline and randomized in the REWIND trial were assessed for the development of AA based on an annual ECG. Additional analyses included whether dulaglutide compared with placebo reduced the composite outcome of AA or death, AA or cardiovascular death, AA or stroke and AA or heart failure. RESULTS: Among 9543 participants (mean age 66 ± 7 years, with cardiovascular risk factors and 31% with previous cardiovascular disease) without AA at entry in the trial, 524 patients (5.5%) had at least one episode of AA during the median 5.4 years of follow-up. Incident AA occurred in 269 of the 4769 participants allocated to dulaglutide (5.6%), at a rate of 10.7 per 1000 person-years, versus 255 of the 4774 allocated to placebo (5.3%), at a rate of 10.5 per 1000 person-years (P = .59). There was also no effect of dulaglutide on the composite outcome of AA and death or AA and heart failure. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis of data from the REWIND trial showed that treatment with dulaglutide was not associated with a reduced incidence of AA in this at-risk group of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Adding a New Medication Versus Maximizing Dose to Intensify Hypertension Treatment in Older Adults : A Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: There are 2 approaches to intensifying antihypertensive treatment when target blood pressure is not reached, adding a new medication and maximizing dose. Which strategy is better is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of intensification by adding a new medication versus maximizing dose, as well as the association of each method with intensification sustainability and follow-up systolic blood pressure (SBP). DESIGN: Large-scale, population-based, retrospective cohort study. Observational data were used to emulate a target trial with 2 groups, new medication and maximizing dose, who underwent intensification of their drug regimen. SETTING: Veterans Health Administration (2011 to 2013). PATIENTS: Veterans aged 65 years or older with hypertension, an SBP of 130 mm Hg or higher, and at least 1 antihypertensive medication at less than the maximum dose. MEASUREMENTS: The following 2 intensification approaches were emulated: adding a new medication, defined as a total dose increase with new medication, and maximizing dose, defined as a total dose increase without new medication. Inverse probability weighting was used to assess the observational effectiveness of the intensification approach on sustainability of intensified treatment and follow-up SBP at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: Among 178 562 patients, 45 575 (25.5%) had intensification by adding a new medication and 132 987 (74.5%) by maximizing dose. Compared with maximizing dose, adding a new medication was associated with less intensification sustainability (average treatment effect, -15.2% [95% CI, -15.7% to -14.6%] at 3 months and -15.1% [CI, -15.6% to -14.5%] at 12 months) but a slightly larger reduction in mean SBP (-0.8 mm Hg [CI, -1.2 to -0.4 mm Hg] at 3 months and -1.1 mm Hg [CI, -1.6 to -0.6 mm Hg] at 12 months). LIMITATION: Observational data; largely male population. CONCLUSION: Adding a new antihypertensive medication was less frequent and was associated with less intensification sustainability but slightly larger reductions in SBP. Trials would provide the most definitive support for our findings. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging and Veterans Health Administration.

Effects of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment on Orthostatic Hypotension : A Systematic Review and Individual Participant-based Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although intensive blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment reduces risk for cardiovascular disease, there are concerns that it might cause orthostatic hypotension (OH). PURPOSE: To examine the effects of intensive BP-lowering treatment on OH in hypertensive adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through 7 October 2019, without language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) that involved more than 500 adults with hypertension or elevated BP and that were 6 months or longer in duration. Trial comparisons were groups assigned to either less intensive BP goals or placebo, and the outcome was measured OH, defined as a decrease of 20 mm Hg or more in systolic BP or 10 mm Hg or more in diastolic BP after changing position from seated to standing. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 investigators independently abstracted articles and rated risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: 5 trials examined BP treatment goals, and 4 examined active agents versus placebo. Trials examining BP treatment goals included 18 466 participants with 127 882 follow-up visits. Trials were open-label, with minimal heterogeneity of effects across trials. Intensive BP treatment lowered risk for OH (odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]). Effects did not differ by prerandomization OH (P for interaction = 0.80). In sensitivity analyses that included 4 additional placebo-controlled trials, overall and subgroup findings were unchanged. LIMITATIONS: Assessments of OH were done while participants were seated (not supine) and did not include the first minute after standing. Data on falls and syncope were not available. CONCLUSION: Intensive BP-lowering treatment decreases risk for OH. Orthostatic hypotension, before or in the setting of more intensive BP treatment, should not be viewed as a reason to avoid or de-escalate treatment for hypertension. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. (PROSPERO: CRD42020153753).

Management of Blood Pressure in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Not Receiving Dialysis: Synopsis of the 2021 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline.

DESCRIPTION: The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure (BP) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis is an update of the KDIGO 2012 guideline on the same topic and reflects new evidence on the risks and benefits of BP-lowering therapy among patients with CKD. It is intended to support shared decision making by health care professionals working with patients with CKD worldwide. This article is a synopsis of the full guideline. METHODS: The KDIGO leadership commissioned 2 co-chairs to convene an international Work Group of researchers and clinicians. After a Controversies Conference in September 2017, the Work Group defined the scope of the evidence review, which was undertaken by an evidence review team between October 2017 and April 2020. Evidence reviews were done according to the Cochrane Handbook. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to guide the development of the recommendations and rate the strength and quality of the evidence. Practice points were included to provide guidance when evidence was insufficient to make a graded recommendation. The guideline was revised after public consultation between January and March 2020. RECOMMENDATIONS: The updated guideline comprises 11 recommendations and 20 practice points. This synopsis summarizes key recommendations pertinent to the diagnosis and management of high BP in adults with CKD, excluding those receiving kidney replacement therapy. In particular, the synopsis focuses on recommendations for standardized BP measurement and a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, because these recommendations differ from some other guidelines.

Similar cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes and established or high risk for coronary vascular disease treated with dulaglutide with and without baseline metformin.

OBJECTIVE: Recent European Guidelines for Diabetes, Prediabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases introduced a shift in managing patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for or established cardiovascular (CV) disease by recommending GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial glucose-lowering therapy. This is questioned since outcome trials of these drug classes had metformin as background therapy. In this post hoc analysis, the effect of dulaglutide on CV events was investigated according to the baseline metformin therapy by means of a subgroup analysis of the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients in REWIND (n = 9901; women: 46.3%; mean age: 66.2 years) had type 2 diabetes and either a previous CV event (31%) or high CV risk (69%). They were randomized (1:1) to sc. dulaglutide (1.5 mg/weekly) or placebo in addition to standard of care. The primary outcome was the first of a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. Key secondary outcomes included a microvascular composite endpoint, all-cause death, and heart failure. The effect of dulaglutide in patients with and without baseline metformin was evaluated by a Cox regression hazard model with baseline metformin, dulaglutide assignment, and their interaction as independent variables. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by a Cox regression model with adjustments for factors differing at baseline between people with vs. without metformin, identified using the backward selection. RESULTS: Compared to patients with metformin at baseline (n = 8037; 81%), those without metformin (n = 1864; 19%) were older and slightly less obese and had higher proportions of women, prior CV events, heart failure, and renal disease. The primary outcome occurred in 976 (12%) participants with baseline metformin and in 281 (15%) without. There was no significant difference in the effect of dulaglutide on the primary outcome in patients with vs. without metformin at baseline [HR 0.92 (CI 0.81-1.05) vs. 0.78 (CI 0.61-0.99); interaction P = 0.18]. Findings for key secondary outcomes were similar in patients with and without baseline metformin. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dulaglutide is unaffected by the baseline use of metformin therapy.

Racial and ethnic disparities associated with the measure for drug-drug interactions among Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) cause many preventable hospitalizations and admissions. Efforts have been made to raise DDI awareness and reduce DDI occurrence; for example, Medicare Part D Star Ratings, a health plan quality assessment program, included a DDI measure. Previous research reported racial and ethnic disparities in health services utilization and that racial and ethnic minorities, compared with non-Hispanic whites (whites), may be less likely to be targeted for a similar measure, a Star Ratings adherence measure for diabetes medications. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether any racial and ethnic disparities are associated with the DDI measure in Part D Star Ratings among Medicare populations with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed a 2017 Medicare Part D data sample, including 3,960,813 beneficiaries. Because the inclusion in the denominator of the Star Ratings DDI measure was determined by the use of a list of target medications, the likelihood of using a listed target medication was compared between racial and ethnic minorities and whites. Individuals with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were included in the analysis owing to the high prevalence of these conditions. Patient- and community-level characteristics were adjusted by logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the entire study sample, 26.2% used a target medication. Compared with whites, most racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to use a target medication. For example, among individuals with diabetes, blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and others had, respectively, 14% (odds ratio 0.86 [95% CI 0.84-0.88]), 5% (0.95 [0.93-0.98]), 12% (0.88 [0.84-0.92]), and 10% (0.90 [0.87-0.93]) lower odds compared with whites. Findings were similar among hypertension and hyperlipidemia cohorts, except that Hispanics had similar odds of use as whites. CONCLUSION: Most racial and ethnic minorities may have lower likelihood of being targeted for the DDI measure compared with whites. Future studies should examine whether these disparities affect health outcomes and devise new DDI measures for racial and ethnic minorities.

Executive summary of the KDIGO 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease.

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease for patients not receiving dialysis represents an update to the KDIGO 2012 guideline on this topic. Development of this guideline update followed a rigorous process of evidence review and appraisal. Guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence. The strength of recommendations is based on the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The scope includes topics covered in the original guideline, such as optimal blood pressure targets, lifestyle interventions, antihypertensive medications, and specific management in kidney transplant recipients and children. Some aspects of general and cardiovascular health, such as lipid and smoking management, are excluded. This guideline also introduces a chapter dedicated to proper blood pressure measurement since all large randomized trials targeting blood pressure with pivotal outcomes used standardized preparation and measurement protocols adhered to by patients and clinicians. Based on previous and new evidence, in particular the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results, we propose a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg using standardized office reading for most people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis, the exception being children and kidney transplant recipients. The goal of this guideline is to provide clinicians and patients a useful resource with actionable recommendations supplemented with practice points. The burden of the recommendations on patients and resources, public policy implications, and limitations of the evidence are taken into consideration. Lastly, knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research are provided.

Estimated GFR Variability and Risk of Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial).

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: Although low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and mortality, the clinical significance of variability in eGFR over time is uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the associations between variability in eGFR and the risk of CVD events and all-cause mortality. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis of clinical trial participants. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: 7,520 Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) participants ≥50 year of age with 1 or more CVD risk factors. PREDICTORS: eGFR variability, estimated by the coefficient of variation of eGFR assessments at the 6th, 12th, and 18-month study visits. OUTCOMES: The SPRINT primary CVD composite outcome (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, or CVD death) and all-cause mortality from month 18 to the end of follow-up. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Cox models were used to evaluate associations between eGFR variability and CVD outcomes and all-cause mortality. Models were adjusted for demographics, randomization arm, CVD risk factors, albuminuria, and eGFR at month 18. RESULTS: Mean age was 68 ± 9 years; 65% were men; and 58% were White. The mean eGFR was 73 ± 21 (SD) mL/min/1.73 m2 at 6 months. There were 370 CVD events and 154 deaths during a median follow-up of 2.4 years. Greater eGFR variability was associated with higher risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD greater variability, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.45) but not CVD events (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95-1.16) after adjusting for albuminuria, eGFR, and other CVD risk factors. Associations were similar when stratified by treatment arm and by baseline CKD status, when accounting for concurrent systolic blood pressure changes, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and diuretic medications during follow up. LIMITATIONS: Persons with diabetes and proteinuria > 1 g/d were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: In trial participants at high risk for CVD, greater eGFR variability was independently associated with all-cause mortality but not CVD events.

Synopsis of the 2020 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline: The Diagnosis and Management of Hypertension in the Primary Care Setting.

DESCRIPTION: In January 2020, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a joint clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in the primary care setting. METHODS: The VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included a multidisciplinary panel of practicing clinician stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel developed key questions in collaboration with the ECRI Institute, which systematically searched and evaluated the literature from 15 December 2013 to 25 March 2019 and developed and rated recommendations by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. RECOMMENDATIONS: This synopsis summarizes key features of the guideline in several key areas: the measurement of blood pressure, the definition of hypertension, target treatment goals, and nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment of essential and resistant hypertension.

Commentary on the KDIGO 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in CKD.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize and explain the new guideline on blood pressure (BP) management in chronic kidney disease (CKD) published by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO), an independent global nonprofit organization which develops and implements evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in kidney disease. KDIGO issued its first clinical practice guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure (BP) in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) for patients not receiving dialysis in 2012 and now updated the guideline in 2021. RECENT FINDINGS: Recommendations in this update were developed based on systematic literature reviews and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and strength of recommendation following the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The updated guideline includes five chapters covering BP measurement techniques, lifestyle interventions for lowering BP, and management of BP in three target populations, namely adults (with and without diabetes), kidney transplant recipients, and children. A dedicated chapter on BP measurement emphasizing standardized preparation and measurement protocols for office BP measurement is a new addition, following protocols used in large randomized trials of BP targets with pivotal clinical outcomes. Based on the available evidence, and in particular in the CKD subgroup of the SPRINT trial, the 2021 guideline suggests a systolic BP target of <120 mm Hg, based on standardized measurements, for most individuals with CKD not receiving dialysis, with the exception of kidney transplant recipients and children. This recommendation is strictly contingent on the measurement of BP using standardized office readings and not routine office readings.

Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Three different glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists reduce cardiovascular outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk with high glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) concentrations. We assessed the effect of the GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events when added to the existing antihyperglycaemic regimens of individuals with type 2 diabetes with and without previous cardiovascular disease and a wide range of glycaemic control. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done at 371 sites in 24 countries. Men and women aged at least 50 years with type 2 diabetes who had either a previous cardiovascular event or cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned (1:1) to either weekly subcutaneous injection of dulaglutide (1·5 mg) or placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random code with stratification by site. All investigators and participants were masked to treatment assignment. Participants were followed up at least every 6 months for incident cardiovascular and other serious clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of the composite endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes (including unknown causes), which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01394952. FINDINGS: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, 9901 participants (mean age 66·2 years [SD 6·5], median HbA1c 7·2% [IQR 6·6-8·1], 4589 [46·3%] women) were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dulaglutide (n=4949) or placebo (n=4952). During a median follow-up of 5·4 years (IQR 5·1-5·9), the primary composite outcome occurred in 594 (12·0%) participants at an incidence rate of 2·4 per 100 person-years in the dulaglutide group and in 663 (13·4%) participants at an incidence rate of 2·7 per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99; p=0·026). All-cause mortality did not differ between groups (536 [10·8%] in the dulaglutide group vs 592 [12·0%] in the placebo group; HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·80-1·01; p=0·067). 2347 (47·4%) participants assigned to dulaglutide reported a gastrointestinal adverse event during follow-up compared with 1687 (34·1%) participants assigned to placebo (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Dulaglutide could be considered for the management of glycaemic control in middle-aged and older people with type 2 diabetes with either previous cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.