Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Control on Gait Speed and Mobility Limitation in Adults 75 Years or Older: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Intensive blood pressure (BP) control confers a benefit on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; whether it affects physical function outcomes is unknown. Objective: To examine the effect of intensive BP control on changes in gait speed and mobility status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, clinical trial included 2636 individuals 75 years or older with hypertension and no history of type 2 diabetes or stroke who participated in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). Data were collected from November 8, 2010, to December 1, 2015. Analysis was based on intention to treat. Interventions: Participants were randomized to intensive treatment with a systolic BP target of less than 120 mm Hg (n = 1317) vs standard treatment with a BP target of less than 140 mm Hg (n = 1319). Main Outcomes and Measures: Gait speed was measured using a 4-m walk test. Self-reported information concerning mobility was obtained from items on the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey and the EQ-5D. Mobility limitation was defined as a gait speed less than 0.6 meters per second (m/s) or self-reported limitations in walking and climbing stairs. Results: Among the 2629 participants in whom mobility status could be defined (996 women [37.9%]; 1633 men [62.1%]; mean [SD] age, 79.9 [4.0] years), median (interquartile range) follow-up was 3 (2-3) years. No difference in mean gait speed decline was noted between the intensive- and standard-treatment groups (mean difference, 0.0004 m/s per year; 95% CI, -0.005 to 0.005; P = .88). No evidence of any treatment group differences in subgroups defined by age, sex, race or ethnicity, baseline systolic BP, chronic kidney disease, or a history of cardiovascular disease were found. A modest interaction was found for the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey Physical Component Summary score, although the effect did not reach statistical significance in either subgroup, with mean differences of 0.004 (95% CI, -0.002 to 0.010) m/s per year among those with scores of at least 40 and -0.008 (95% CI, -0.016 to 0.001) m/s per year among those with scores less than 40 (P = .03 for interaction). Multistate models allowing for the competing risk of death demonstrated no effect of intensive treatment on transitions to mobility limitation (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.92-1.22). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults 75 years or older in SPRINT, treating to a systolic BP target of less than 120 mm Hg compared with a target of less than 140 mm Hg had no effect on changes in gait speed and was not associated with changes in mobility limitation. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Patient-Centered Educational Mailer Designed to Improve Statin Adherence: A Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with high total cholesterol have increased risk of cardiovascular disease. National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) and American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines recommend cholesterol lowering with statin medications; however, statin adherence remains poor. We hypothesized that patient-centered education on the 10-year risk for each of the major constituents of cardiovascular disease would increase statin adherence and achievement of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal. METHODS: Veterans within the Salt Lake City Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center initiating statin therapy from October 2008 to December 2011 were randomized in a pragmatic design to receive either an educational mailer or usual care. The mailer outlined their 10-year global cardiovascular risk, separated into coronary heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure. The study was unblinded and followed an intention-to-treat analysis where outcome measures were obtained during normal care process. The primary outcome measure was the achievement of the LDL-C goal during the 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Two hundred and seven patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention arm (95) or the control arm (112). No differences in the proportion of patients meeting the LDL-C goal were detected during 12-months [Relative Risk (RR): 0.95 (95 percent confidence interval (CI): 0.77-1.17)] or 18-months [RR: 1.03 (95 percent CI: 0.84, 1.25)]. Patients in the intervention arm had higher adherence on average, e.g., intervention patients were more likely to have 70 percent or more days of statin therapy compared to patients who received standard care-though this did not reach statistical significance-RR: 1.33 (95 percent CI: 1.00, 1.78). There were no statistical differences in cardiovascular outcomes or mortality. CONCLUSION: Patient education mailers sent to patients starting statin treatment did not have a clear impact on LDL-C goal achievement or adherence to statin therapy.