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.

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.

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.).

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.

Cardiopulmonary Impact of Particulate Air Pollution in High-Risk Populations: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Fine particulate air pollution <2.5 µm in diameter (PM2.5) is a major environmental threat to global public health. Multiple national and international medical and governmental organizations have recognized PM2.5 as a risk factor for cardiopulmonary diseases. A growing body of evidence indicates that several personal-level approaches that reduce exposures to PM2.5 can lead to improvements in health endpoints. Novel and forward-thinking strategies including randomized clinical trials are important to validate key aspects (e.g., feasibility, efficacy, health benefits, risks, burden, costs) of the various protective interventions, in particular among real-world susceptible and vulnerable populations. This paper summarizes the discussions and conclusions from an expert workshop, Reducing the Cardiopulmonary Impact of Particulate Matter Air Pollution in High Risk Populations, held on May 29 to 30, 2019, and convened by the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Effects of intensive versus standard blood pressure control on domain-specific cognitive function: a substudy of the SPRINT randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that intensive control of systolic blood pressure significantly reduced the occurrence of mild cognitive impairment, but not probable dementia. We investigated the effects of intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure on specific cognitive functions in a preplanned substudy of participants from SPRINT. METHODS: SPRINT was an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial undertaken at 102 sites, including academic medical centres, Veterans Affairs medical centres, hospitals, and independent clinics, in the USA and Puerto Rico. Participants were adults aged 50 years or older with systolic blood pressure higher than 130 mm Hg, but without diabetes, history of stroke, or dementia. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) versus less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). All major classes of antihypertensive agents were included. A subgroup of randomly assigned participants including, but not limited to, participants enrolled in an MRI substudy was then selected for a concurrent substudy of cognitive function (target 2800 participants). Each individual was assessed with a screening cognitive test battery and an extended cognitive test battery at baseline and biennially during the planned 4-year follow-up. The primary outcomes for this substudy were standardised composite scores for memory (Logical Memory I and II, Modified Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure [immediate recall], and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised [delayed recall]) and processing speed (Trail Making Test and Digit Symbol Coding). SPRINT was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01206062. FINDINGS: From Nov 23, 2010, to Dec 28, 2012, 2921 participants (mean age 68·4 years [SD 8·6], 1080 [37%] women) who had been randomly assigned in SPRINT were enrolled in the substudy (1448 received intensive treatment and 1473 received standard treatment). SPRINT was terminated early due to benefit observed in the primary outcome (composite of cardiovascular events). After a median follow-up of 4·1 years (IQR 3·7-5·8), there was no between-group difference in memory, with an annual decline in mean standardised domain score of -0·005 (95% CI -0·010 to 0·001) in the intensive treatment group and -0·001 (-0·006 to 0·005) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference -0·004, 95% CI -0·012 to 0·004; p=0·33). Mean standardised processing speed domain scores declined more in the intensive treatment group (between-group difference -0·010, 95% CI -0·017 to -0·002; p=0·02), with an annual decline of -0·025 (-0·030 to -0·019) for the intensive treatment group and -0·015 (-0·021 to 0·009) for the standard treatment group. INTERPRETATION: Intensive treatment to lower systolic blood pressure did not result in a clinically relevant difference compared with standard treatment in memory or processing speed in a subgroup of participants from SPRINT. The effect of blood pressure lowering might not be evident in specific domains of cognitive function, but instead distributed across multiple domains. FUNDING: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Alzheimer's Association.

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.

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.

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.

Blood Pressure Measurement in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial).

Recent publications have stated that the blood pressure (BP) measurement technique used in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was unattended. However, the SPRINT protocol does not address the issue of attendance. A survey was conducted immediately after SPRINT closeout visits were completed to inquire whether BP measurements were usually attended or unattended by staff. There were 4082 participants at 38 sites that measured BP after leaving the participant alone the entire time (always alone), 2247 at 25 sites that had personnel in the room the entire time (never alone), 1746 at 19 sites that left the participant alone only during the rest period (alone for rest), and 570 at 6 sites that left the participant alone only during the BP readings (alone for BP measurement). Similar systolic and diastolic BPs within randomized groups were noted during follow-up at the majority of visits in all 4 measurement categories. In the always alone and never alone categories, the intensive group had a similarly reduced risk for the primary outcome compared with the standard group (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.76 and hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91, respectively; pairwise interaction P value, 0.88); risk was not significantly reduced for the intensive group in the smaller alone-for-rest and the alone-for-BP-measurement categories. Similar BP levels and cardiovascular disease risk reduction were observed in the intensive group in SPRINT participants whether the measurement technique used was primarily attended or unattended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: 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.

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.

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 Versus Standard Clinic-Based Hypertension Management on Ambulatory Blood Pressure: Results From the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) Ambulatory Blood Pressure Study.

The effect of clinic-based intensive hypertension treatment on ambulatory blood pressure (BP) is unknown. The goal of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) ambulatory BP ancillary study was to evaluate the effect of intensive versus standard clinic-based BP targets on ambulatory BP. Ambulatory BP was obtained within 3 weeks of the 27-month study visit in 897 SPRINT participants. Intensive treatment resulted in lower clinic systolic BP (mean difference between groups=16.0 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, 14.1-17.8 mm Hg), nighttime systolic BP (mean difference=9.6 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, 7.7-11.5 mm Hg), daytime systolic BP (mean difference=12.3 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, 10.6-13.9 mm Hg), and 24-hour systolic BP (mean difference=11.2 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, 9.7-12.8 mm Hg). The night/day systolic BP ratio was similar between the intensive (0.92±0.09) and standard-treatment groups (0.91±0.09). There was considerable lack of agreement within participants between clinic systolic BP and daytime ambulatory systolic BP with wide limits of agreement on Bland-Altman plots. In conclusion, targeting a systolic BP of <120 mm Hg, when compared with <140 mm Hg, resulted in lower nighttime, daytime, and 24-hour systolic BP, but did not change the night/day systolic BP ratio. Ambulatory BP monitoring may be required to assess the effect of targeted hypertension therapy on out of office BP. Further studies are needed to assess whether targeting hypertension therapy based on ambulatory BP improves clinical outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01835249.