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.).

Implementing the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Strategic Vision in the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences-2022 Update.

Spurred by the 2016 release of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Strategic Vision, the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences developed its Strategic Vision Implementation Plan-a blueprint for reigniting the decline in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality rates, improving health equity, and accelerating translation of scientific discoveries into better cardiovascular health (CVH). The 6 scientific focus areas of the Strategic Vision Implementation Plan reflect the multifactorial nature of CVD and include (1) addressing social determinants of CVH and health inequities, (2) enhancing resilience, (3) promoting CVH and preventing CVD across the lifespan, (4) eliminating hypertension-related CVD, (5) reducing the burden of heart failure, and (6) preventing vascular dementia. This article presents an update of strategic vision implementation activities within Division of Cardiovascular Sciences. Overarching and cross-cutting themes include training the scientific workforce and engaging the extramural scientific community to stimulate transformative research in cardiovascular sciences. In partnership with other NIH Institutes, Federal agencies, industry, and the extramural research community, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences strategic vision implementation has stimulated development of numerous workshops and research funding opportunities. Strategic Vision Implementation Plan activities highlight innovative intervention modalities, interdisciplinary systems approaches to CVD reduction, a life course framework for CVH promotion and CVD prevention, and multi-pronged research strategies for combatting COVID-19. As new knowledge, technologies, and areas of scientific research emerge, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences will continue its thoughtful approach to strategic vision implementation, remaining poised to seize emerging opportunities and catalyze breakthroughs in cardiovascular sciences.

Implementing the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Strategic Vision in the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences.

As we commemorate the 70th Anniversary of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and celebrate important milestones that have been achieved by the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences (DCVS), it is imperative that DCVS and the Extramural Research community at-large continue to address critical public health challenges that persist within the area of Cardiovascular Diseases (CVD). The NHLBI's Strategic Vision, developed with extensive input from the extramural research community and published in 2016, included overarching goals and strategic objectives that serve to provide a general blueprint for sustaining the legacy of the Institute by leveraging opportunities in emerging scientific areas (e.g., regenerative medicine, omics technology, data science, precision medicine, and mobile health), finding new ways to address enduring challenges (e.g., social determinants of health, health inequities, prevention, and health promotion), and training the next generation of heart, lung, blood, and sleep researchers. DCVS has developed a strategic vision implementation plan to provide a cardiovascular framing for the pursuit of the Institute's overarching goals and strategic objectives garnered from the input of the broader NHLBI community. This plan highlights six scientific focus areas that demonstrate a cross-cutting and multifaceted approach to addressing cardiovascular sciences, including 1) addressing social determinants of cardiovascular health (CVH) and health inequities, 2) enhancing resilience, 3) promoting CVH and preventing CVD Across the lifespan, 4) eliminating hypertension-related CVD, 5) reducing the burden of heart failure, and 6) preventing vascular dementia. These priorities will guide our efforts in Institute-driven activities in the coming years but will not exclude development of other novel ideas or the support of investigator-initiated grant awards. The DCVS Strategic Vision implementation plan is a living document that will evolve with iterative dialogue with the NHLBI community and adapt as the dynamic scientific landscape changes to seize emerging opportunities.

Trends in Blood Pressure Control Among US Adults With Hypertension, 1999-2000 to 2017-2018.

Importance: Controlling blood pressure (BP) reduces the risk for cardiovascular disease. Objective: To determine whether BP control among US adults with hypertension changed from 1999-2000 through 2017-2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: Serial cross-sectional analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, weighted to be representative of US adults, between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018 (10 cycles), including 18 262 US adults aged 18 years or older with hypertension defined as systolic BP level of 140 mm Hg or higher, diastolic BP level of 90 mm Hg or higher, or use of antihypertensive medication. The date of final data collection was 2018. Exposures: Calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean BP was computed using 3 measurements. The primary outcome of BP control was defined as systolic BP level lower than 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP level lower than 90 mm Hg. Results: Among the 51 761 participants included in this analysis, the mean (SD) age was 48 (19) years and 25 939 (50.1%) were women; 43.2% were non-Hispanic White adults; 21.6%, non-Hispanic Black adults; 5.3%, non-Hispanic Asian adults; and 26.1%, Hispanic adults. Among the 18 262 adults with hypertension, the age-adjusted estimated proportion with controlled BP increased from 31.8% (95% CI, 26.9%-36.7%) in 1999-2000 to 48.5% (95% CI, 45.5%-51.5%) in 2007-2008 (P < .001 for trend), remained stable and was 53.8% (95% CI, 48.7%-59.0%) in 2013-2014 (P = .14 for trend), and then declined to 43.7% (95% CI, 40.2%-47.2%) in 2017-2018 (P = .003 for trend). Compared with adults who were aged 18 years to 44 years, it was estimated that controlled BP was more likely among those aged 45 years to 64 years (49.7% vs 36.7%; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.02-1.37]) and less likely among those aged 75 years or older (37.3% vs 36.7%; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.65-0.97]). It was estimated that controlled BP was less likely among non-Hispanic Black adults vs non-Hispanic White adults (41.5% vs 48.2%, respectively; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96). Controlled BP was more likely among those with private insurance (48.2%), Medicare (53.4%), or government health insurance other than Medicare or Medicaid (43.2%) vs among those without health insurance (24.2%) (multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.08-1.80], 1.47 [95% CI, 1.15-1.89], and 1.36 [95% CI, 1.04-1.76], respectively). Controlled BP was more likely among those with vs those without a usual health care facility (48.4% vs 26.5%, respectively; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.13-1.94]) and among those who had vs those who had not had a health care visit in the past year (49.1% vs 8.0%; multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratio, 5.23 [95% CI, 2.88-9.49]). Conclusions and Relevance: In a series of cross-sectional surveys weighted to be representative of the adult US population, the prevalence of controlled BP increased between 1999-2000 and 2007-2008, did not significantly change from 2007-2008 through 2013-2014, and then decreased after 2013-2014.

Vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID): A report from the 2018 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Workshop.

Vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) are characterized by the aging neurovascular unit being confronted with and failing to cope with biological insults due to systemic and cerebral vascular disease, proteinopathy including Alzheimer's biology, metabolic disease, or immune response, resulting in cognitive decline. This report summarizes the discussion and recommendations from a working group convened by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke to evaluate the state of the field in VCID research, identify research priorities, and foster collaborations. As discussed in this report, advances in understanding the biological mechanisms of VCID across the wide spectrum of pathologies, chronic systemic comorbidities, and other risk factors may lead to potential prevention and new treatment strategies to decrease the burden of dementia. Better understanding of the social determinants of health that affect risks for both vascular disease and VCID could provide insight into strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in VCID.

Decline in Cardiovascular Mortality: Possible Causes and Implications.

If the control of infectious diseases was the public health success story of the first half of the 20th century, then the decline in mortality from coronary heart disease and stroke has been the success story of the century's past 4 decades. The early phase of this decline in coronary heart disease and stroke was unexpected and controversial when first reported in the mid-1970s, having followed 60 years of gradual increase as the US population aged. However, in 1978, the participants in a conference convened by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute concluded that a significant recent downtick in coronary heart disease and stroke mortality rates had definitely occurred, at least in the US Since 1978, a sharp decline in mortality rates from coronary heart disease and stroke has become unmistakable throughout the industrialized world, with age-adjusted mortality rates having declined to about one third of their 1960s baseline by 2000. Models have shown that this remarkable decline has been fueled by rapid progress in both prevention and treatment, including precipitous declines in cigarette smoking, improvements in hypertension treatment and control, widespread use of statins to lower circulating cholesterol levels, and the development and timely use of thrombolysis and stents in acute coronary syndrome to limit or prevent infarction. However, despite the huge growth in knowledge and advances in prevention and treatment, there remain many questions about this decline. In fact, there is evidence that the rate of decline may have abated and may even be showing early signs of reversal in some population groups. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, through a request for information, is soliciting input that could inform a follow-up conference on or near the 40th anniversary of the original landmark conference to further explore these trends in cardiovascular mortality in the context of what has come before and what may lie ahead.

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.

A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

BACKGROUND: The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 9361 persons with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. The intervention was stopped early after a median follow-up of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (1.65% per year vs. 2.19% per year; hazard ratio with intensive treatment, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.90; P=0.003). Rates of serious adverse events of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, and acute kidney injury or failure, but not of injurious falls, were higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause, although significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

A new modeling and inference approach for the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial outcomes.

Background/aims In clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes, usually the significance tests and confidence intervals are based on a proportional hazards model. Thus, the temporal pattern of the treatment effect is not directly considered. This could be problematic if the proportional hazards assumption is violated, as such violation could impact both interim and final estimates of the treatment effect. Methods We describe the application of inference procedures developed recently in the literature for time-to-event outcomes when the treatment effect may or may not be time-dependent. The inference procedures are based on a new model which contains the proportional hazards model as a sub-model. The temporal pattern of the treatment effect can then be expressed and displayed. The average hazard ratio is used as the summary measure of the treatment effect. The test of the null hypothesis uses adaptive weights that often lead to improvement in power over the log-rank test. Results Without needing to assume proportional hazards, the new approach yields results consistent with previously published findings in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. It provides a visual display of the time course of the treatment effect. At four of the five scheduled interim looks, the new approach yields smaller p values than the log-rank test. The average hazard ratio and its confidence interval indicates a treatment effect nearly a year earlier than a restricted mean survival time-based approach. Conclusion When the hazards are proportional between the comparison groups, the new methods yield results very close to the traditional approaches. When the proportional hazards assumption is violated, the new methods continue to be applicable and can potentially be more sensitive to departure from the null hypothesis.

The design and rationale of a multicenter clinical trial comparing two strategies for control of systolic blood pressure: the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

BACKGROUND: High blood pressure is an important public health concern because it is highly prevalent and a risk factor for adverse health outcomes, including coronary heart disease, stroke, decompensated heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and decline in cognitive function. Observational studies show a progressive increase in risk associated with blood pressure above 115/75 mm Hg. Prior research has shown that reducing elevated systolic blood pressure lowers the risk of subsequent clinical complications from cardiovascular disease. However, the optimal systolic blood pressure to reduce blood pressure-related adverse outcomes is unclear, and the benefit of treating to a level of systolic blood pressure well below 140 mm Hg has not been proven in a large, definitive clinical trial. PURPOSE: To describe the design considerations of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) and the baseline characteristics of trial participants. METHODS: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial that compares two strategies for treating systolic blood pressure: one targets the standard target of <140 mm Hg, and the other targets a more intensive target of <120 mm Hg. Enrollment focused on volunteers of age ≥50 years (no upper limit) with an average baseline systolic blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg and evidence of cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, 10-year Framingham cardiovascular disease risk score ≥15%, or age ≥75 years. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial recruitment also targeted three pre-specified subgroups: participants with chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), participants with a history of cardiovascular disease, and participants 75 years of age or older. The primary outcome is first the occurrence of a myocardial infarction (MI), acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular disease death. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, decline in kidney function or development of end-stage renal disease, incident dementia, decline in cognitive function, and small-vessel cerebral ischemic disease. RESULTS: Between 8 November 2010 and 15 March 2013, Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial recruited and randomized 9361 people at 102 clinics, including 3331 women, 2648 with chronic kidney disease, 1877 with a history of cardiovascular disease, 3962 minorities, and 2636 ≥75 years of age. LIMITATIONS: Although the overall recruitment target was met, the numbers recruited in the high-risk subgroups were lower than planned. CONCLUSIONS: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial will provide important information on the risks and benefits of intensive blood pressure treatment targets in a diverse sample of high-risk participants, including those with prior cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and those aged ≥75 years.

The Science of Precision Prevention: Research Opportunities and Clinical Applications to Reduce Cardiovascular Health Disparities.

Precision prevention embraces personalized prevention but includes broader factors such as social determinants of health to improve cardiovascular health. The quality, quantity, precision, and diversity of data relatable to individuals and communities continue to expand. New analytical methods can be applied to these data to create tools to attribute risk, which may allow a better understanding of cardiovascular health disparities. Interventions using these analytic tools should be evaluated to establish feasibility and efficacy for addressing cardiovascular disease disparities in diverse individuals and communities. Training in these approaches is important to create the next generation of scientists and practitioners in precision prevention. This state-of-the-art review is based on a workshop convened to identify current gaps in knowledge and methods used in precision prevention intervention research, discuss opportunities to expand trials of implementation science to close the health equity gaps, and expand the education and training of a diverse precision prevention workforce.

Effects of medical therapies on retinopathy progression in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether intensive glycemic control, combination therapy for dyslipidemia, and intensive blood-pressure control would limit the progression of diabetic retinopathy in persons with type 2 diabetes. Previous data suggest that these systemic factors may be important in the development and progression of diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: In a randomized trial, we enrolled 10,251 participants with type 2 diabetes who were at high risk for cardiovascular disease to receive either intensive or standard treatment for glycemia (target glycated hemoglobin level, <6.0% or 7.0 to 7.9%, respectively) and also for dyslipidemia (160 mg daily of fenofibrate plus simvastatin or placebo plus simvastatin) or for systolic blood-pressure control (target, <120 or <140 mm Hg). A subgroup of 2856 participants was evaluated for the effects of these interventions at 4 years on the progression of diabetic retinopathy by 3 or more steps on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale (as assessed from seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs, with 17 possible steps and a higher number of steps indicating greater severity) or the development of diabetic retinopathy necessitating laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy. RESULTS: At 4 years, the rates of progression of diabetic retinopathy were 7.3% with intensive glycemia treatment, versus 10.4% with standard therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.87; P=0.003); 6.5% with fenofibrate for intensive dyslipidemia therapy, versus 10.2% with placebo (adjusted odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.87; P=0.006); and 10.4% with intensive blood-pressure therapy, versus 8.8% with standard therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.79; P=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive glycemic control and intensive combination treatment of dyslipidemia, but not intensive blood-pressure control, reduced the rate of progression of diabetic retinopathy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00000620 for the ACCORD study and NCT00542178 for the ACCORD Eye study.)

Relationships between changes in patient-reported health status and functional capacity in outpatients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure trials use a variety of measures of functional capacity and quality of life. Lack of formal assessments of the relationships between changes in multiple aspects of patient-reported health status and measures of functional capacity over time limits the ability to compare results across studies. METHODS: Using data from HF-ACTION (N = 2331), we used the Pearson correlation coefficients and predicted change scores from linear mixed-effects modeling to demonstrate the associations between changes in patient-reported health status measured with the EQ-5D visual analog scale and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and changes in peak VO(2) and 6-minute walk distance at 3 and 12 months. We examined a 5-point change in KCCQ within individuals to provide a framework for interpreting changes in these measures. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline characteristics, correlations between changes in the visual analog scale and changes in peak VO(2) and 6-minute walk distance ranged from 0.13 to 0.28, and correlations between changes in the KCCQ overall and subscale scores and changes in peak VO(2) and 6-minute walk distance ranged from 0.18 to 0.34. A 5-point change in KCCQ was associated with a 2.50-mL kg(-1) min(-1) change in peak VO(2) (95% CI 2.21-2.86) and a 112-m change in 6-minute walk distance (95% CI 96-134). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in patient-reported health status are not highly correlated with changes in functional capacity. Our findings generally support the current practice of considering a 5-point change in the KCCQ within individuals to be clinically meaningful.

Earlier treatment in adults with high lifetime risk of cardiovascular diseases: What prevention trials are feasible and could change clinical practice? Report of a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Workshop.

More than half of U.S. young adults have low ten-year but high lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Improving primary prevention in young adulthood may help reduce persistent CVD disparities and overall CVD morbidity and mortality. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) convened a workshop in 2021 to identify potential trial opportunities in CVD prevention in young adults. The workshop identified promising interventions that could be tested, including interventions that focus on a single cardiovascular risk factor (e.g., lipids or inflammation) to multiple risk factor interventions (e.g., multicomponent lifestyle interventions or fixed-low dose combination of medications). Given the sample size and duration for a trial with hard endpoints, more research is needed on the utility of intermediate endpoints identified noninvasively such as subclinical coronary atherosclerosis as a surrogate endpoint. For now, clinical outcomes trials with hard endpoints will more likely change clinical practice. Trial efficiency depends on accurate identification of high-risk young adults, which can potentially be done using traditional risk equations, coronary artery calcium screening, computerized tomography coronary angiography, and polygenic risk scores. Trials in young adults should include enhanced recruitment strategies with intense community engagement to enroll a trial population that is racially, ethnically, geographically, and socially diverse. Despite the challenges in conducting large prevention trials in young adults, recent advances including innovation in clinical trial conduct, new therapies and successful interventions in older populations, and an increasing recognition of a lifespan approach to risk assessment have made such trials more feasible than ever. Disclosures: The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Proceedings From a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Workshop to Control Hypertension.

Hypertension treatment and control prevent more cardiovascular events than management of other modifiable risk factors. Although the age-adjusted proportion of US adults with controlled blood pressure (BP) defined as <140/90 mm Hg, improved from 31.8% in 1999-2000 to 48.5% in 2007-2008, it remained stable through 2013-2014 and declined to 43.7% in 2017-2018. To address the rapid decline in hypertension control, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a virtual workshop with multidisciplinary national experts. Also, the group sought to identify opportunities to reverse the adverse trend and further improve hypertension control. The workshop immediately preceded the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Control Hypertension, which recognized a stagnation in progress with hypertension control. The presentations and discussions included potential reasons for the decline and challenges in hypertension control, possible "big ideas," and multisector approaches that could reverse the current trend while addressing knowledge gaps and research priorities. The broad set of "big ideas" was comprised of various activities that may improve hypertension control, including: interventions to engage patients, promotion of self-measured BP monitoring with clinical support, supporting team-based care, implementing telehealth, enhancing community-clinical linkages, advancing precision population health, developing tailored public health messaging, simplifying hypertension treatment, using process and outcomes quality metrics to foster accountability and efficiency, improving access to high-quality health care, addressing social determinants of health, supporting cardiovascular public health and research, and lowering financial barriers to hypertension control.

SPRINT Revisited: Updated Results and Implications.

The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) results have influenced clinical practice but have also generated discussion regarding the validity, generalizability, and importance of the findings. Following the SPRINT primary results manuscript in 2015, additional results and analyses of the data have addressed these concerns. The primary objective of this article is to respond to key questions that have been raised.

Primary Prevention Trial Designs Using Coronary Imaging: A National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Workshop.

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is considered a useful test for enhancing risk assessment in the primary prevention setting. Clinical trials are under consideration. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a multidisciplinary working group on August 26 to 27, 2019, in Bethesda, Maryland, to review available evidence and consider the appropriateness of conducting further research on coronary artery calcium (CAC) testing, or other coronary imaging studies, as a way of informing decisions for primary preventive treatments for cardiovascular disease. The working group concluded that additional evidence to support current guideline recommendations for use of CAC in middle-age adults is very likely to come from currently ongoing trials in that age group, and a new trial is not likely to be timely or cost effective. The current trials will not, however, address the role of CAC testing in younger adults or older adults, who are also not addressed in existing guidelines, nor will existing trials address the potential benefit of an opportunistic screening strategy made feasible by the application of artificial intelligence. Innovative trial designs for testing the value of CAC across the lifespan were strongly considered and represent important opportunities for additional research, particularly those that leverage existing trials or other real-world data streams including clinical computed tomography scans. Sex and racial/ethnic disparities in cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality, and inclusion of diverse participants in future CAC trials, particularly those based in the United States, would enhance the potential impact of these studies.