Effects of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment on Acute Kidney Injury Events in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

BACKGROUND: Treating to a lower blood pressure (BP) may increase acute kidney injury (AKI) events. STUDY DESIGN: Data for AKI resulting in or during hospitalization or emergency department visits were collected as part of the serious adverse events reporting process of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 9,361 participants 50 years or older with 1 or more risk factors for cardiovascular disease. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to a systolic BP target of <120 (intensive arm) or <140mmHg (standard arm). OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was the number of adjudicated AKI events. Secondary outcomes included severity of AKI and degree of recovery of kidney function after an AKI event. Baseline creatinine concentration was defined as the most recent SPRINT outpatient creatinine value before the date of the AKI event. RESULTS: There were 179 participants with AKI events in the intensive arm and 109 in the standard arm (3.8% vs 2.3%; HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.30-2.10; P<0.001). Of 288 participants with an AKI event, 248 (86.1%) had a single AKI event during the trial. Based on modified KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) criteria for severity of AKI, the number of AKI events in the intensive versus standard arm by KDIGO stage was 128 (58.5%) versus 81 (62.8%) for AKI stage 1, 42 (19.2%) versus 18 (14.0%) for AKI stage 2, and 42 (19.2%) versus 25 (19.4%) for AKI stage 3 (P=0.5). For participants with sufficient data, complete or partial resolution of AKI was seen for 169 (90.4%) and 9 (4.8%) of 187 AKI events in the intensive arm and 86 (86.9%) and 4 (4.0%) of 99 AKI events in the standard arm, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Trial results are not generalizable to patients with diabetes mellitus or without risk factors for cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: More intensive BP lowering resulted in more frequent episodes of AKI. Most cases were mild and most participants had complete recovery of kidney function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT01206062.

Effects of Intensive BP Control in CKD.

The appropriate target for BP in patients with CKD and hypertension remains uncertain. We report prespecified subgroup analyses of outcomes in participants with baseline CKD in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. We randomly assigned participants to a systolic BP target of <120 mm Hg (intensive group; n=1330) or <140 mm Hg (standard group; n=1316). After a median follow-up of 3.3 years, the primary composite cardiovascular outcome occurred in 112 intensive group and 131 standard group CKD participants (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.63 to 1.05). The intensive group also had a lower rate of all-cause death (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.99). Treatment effects did not differ between participants with and without CKD (P values for interactions ≥0.30). The prespecified main kidney outcome, defined as the composite of ≥50% decrease in eGFR from baseline or ESRD, occurred in 15 intensive group and 16 standard group participants (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.83). After the initial 6 months, the intensive group had a slightly higher rate of change in eGFR (-0.47 versus -0.32 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year; P<0.03). The overall rate of serious adverse events did not differ between treatment groups, although some specific adverse events occurred more often in the intensive group. Thus, among patients with CKD and hypertension without diabetes, targeting an SBP<120 mm Hg compared with <140 mm Hg reduced rates of major cardiovascular events and all-cause death without evidence of effect modifications by CKD or deleterious effect on the main kidney outcome.

Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: There is no evidence from randomized trials to support a strategy of lowering systolic blood pressure below 135 to 140 mm Hg in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We investigated whether therapy targeting normal systolic pressure (i.e., <120 mm Hg) reduces major cardiovascular events in participants with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events. METHODS: A total of 4733 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to intensive therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, or standard therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 140 mm Hg. The primary composite outcome was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The mean follow-up was 4.7 years. RESULTS: After 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 119.3 mm Hg in the intensive-therapy group and 133.5 mm Hg in the standard-therapy group. The annual rate of the primary outcome was 1.87% in the intensive-therapy group and 2.09% in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio with intensive therapy, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.06; P=0.20). The annual rates of death from any cause were 1.28% and 1.19% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.35; P=0.55). The annual rates of stroke, a prespecified secondary outcome, were 0.32% and 0.53% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.89; P=0.01). Serious adverse events attributed to antihypertensive treatment occurred in 77 of the 2362 participants in the intensive-therapy group (3.3%) and 30 of the 2371 participants in the standard-therapy group (1.3%) (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.)

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

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

Combined intensive blood pressure and glycemic control does not produce an additive benefit on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetic patients.

A reduction of either blood pressure or glycemia decreases some microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes, and we studied here their combined effects. In total, 4733 older adults with established type 2 diabetes and hypertension were randomly assigned to intensive (systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg) or standard (systolic blood pressure less than 140 mm Hg) blood pressure control, and separately to intensive (HbA1c less than 0.060) or standard (HbA1c 0.070-0.079) glycemic control. Prespecified microvascular outcomes were a composite of renal failure and retinopathy and nine single outcomes. Proportional hazard regression models were used without correction for type I error due to multiple tests. During a mean follow-up of 4.7 years, the primary outcome occurred in 11.4% of intensive and 10.9% of standard blood pressure patients (hazard ratio 1.08), and in 11.1% of intensive and 11.2% of standard glycemia control patients. Intensive blood pressure control only reduced the incidence of microalbuminuria (hazard ratio 0.84), and intensive glycemic control reduced the incidence of macroalbuminuria and a few other microvascular outcomes. There was no interaction between blood pressure and glycemic control, and neither treatment prevented renal failure. Thus, in older patients with established type 2 diabetes and hypertension, intensive blood pressure control improved only 1 of 10 prespecified microvascular outcomes. None of the outcomes were significantly reduced by simultaneous intensive treatment of glycemia and blood pressure, signifying the lack of an additional beneficial effect from combined treatment.

The role of patients' explanatory models and daily-lived experience in hypertension self-management.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled hypertension remains a significant problem for many patients. Few interventions to improve patients' hypertension self-management have had lasting effects. Previous work has focused largely on patients' beliefs as predictors of behavior, but little is understood about beliefs as they are embedded in patients' social contexts. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore how patients' "explanatory models" of hypertension (understandings of the causes, mechanisms or pathophysiology, course of illness, symptoms and effects of treatment) and social context relate to their reported daily hypertension self-management behaviors. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with a diverse group of patients at two large urban Veterans Administration Medical centers. PARTICIPANTS (OR PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS): African-American, white and Latino Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care patients with uncontrolled blood pressure. APPROACH: We conducted thematic analysis using tools of grounded theory to identify key themes surrounding patients' explanatory models, social context and hypertension management behaviors. RESULTS: Patients' perceptions of the cause and course of hypertension, experiences of hypertension symptoms, and beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment were related to different hypertension self-management behaviors. Moreover, patients' daily-lived experiences, such as an isolated lifestyle, serious competing health problems, a lack of habits and routines, barriers to exercise and prioritizing lifestyle choices, also interfered with optimal hypertension self-management. CONCLUSIONS: Designing interventions to improve patients' hypertension self-management requires consideration of patients' explanatory models and their daily-lived experience. We propose a new conceptual model - the dynamic model of hypertension self-management behavior - which incorporates these key elements of patients' experiences.

Usability Testing of the Kidney Score Platform to Enhance Communication About Kidney Disease in Primary Care Settings: Qualitative Think-Aloud Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient awareness of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is low in part due to suboptimal testing for CKD among those at risk and lack of discussions about kidney disease between patients and clinicians. To bridge these gaps, the National Kidney Foundation developed the Kidney Score Platform, which is a web-based series of tools that includes resources for health care professionals as well as an interactive, dynamic patient-facing component that includes a brief questionnaire about risk factors for kidney disease, individualized assessment of risk for developing CKD, and self-management tools to manage one's kidney disease. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to perform usability testing of the patient component of the Kidney Score platform among veterans with and at risk for kidney disease and among clinicians working as primary care providers in Veterans Affairs administration. METHODS: Think-aloud exercises were conducted, during which participants (veterans and clinicians) engaged with the platform while verbalizing their thoughts and making their perceptions, reasonings, and decision points explicit. A usability facilitator observed participants' behaviors and probed selectively to clarify their comprehension of the tool's instructions, content, and overall functionality. Thematic analysis on the audio-recording transcripts was performed, focusing on positive attributes, negative comments, and areas that required facilitator involvement. RESULTS: Veterans (N=18) were 78% (14/18) male with a mean age of 58.1 years. Two-thirds (12/18) were of non-White race/ethnicity, 28% (5/18) had laboratory evidence of CKD without a formal diagnosis, and 50% (9/18) carried a diagnosis of hypertension or diabetes. Clinicians (N=19) were 29% (5/17) male, 30% (5/17) of non-White race/ethnicity, and had a mean of 17 (range 4-32) years of experience. Veterans and clinicians easily navigated the online tool and appreciated the personalized results page as well as the inclusion of infographics to deliver key educational messages. Three major themes related to content and communication about risk for CKD emerged from the think-aloud exercises: (1) tension between lay and medical terminology when discussing kidney disease and diagnostic tests, (2) importance of linking general information to concrete self-management actions, and (3) usefulness of the tool as an adjunct to the office visit to prepare for patient-clinician communication. Importantly, these themes were consistent among interviews involving both veterans and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans and clinicians both thought that the Kidney Score Platform would successfully promote communication and discussion about kidney disease in primary care settings. Tension between using medical terminology that is used regularly by clinicians versus lay terminology to promote CKD awareness was a key challenge, and knowledge of this can inform the development of future CKD educational materials.

Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Hyperglycaemia is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular complications in people with type 2 diabetes. We investigated whether reduction of blood glucose concentration decreases the rate of microvascular complications in people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: ACCORD was a parallel-group, randomised trial done in 77 clinical sites in North America. People with diabetes, high HbA(1c) concentrations (>7.5%), and cardiovascular disease (or >or=2 cardiovascular risk factors) were randomly assigned by central randomisation to intensive (target haemoglobin A(1c) [HbA(1c)] of <6.0%) or standard (7.0-7.9%) glycaemic therapy. In this analysis, the prespecified composite outcomes were: dialysis or renal transplantation, high serum creatinine (>291.7 micromol/L), or retinal photocoagulation or vitrectomy (first composite outcome); or peripheral neuropathy plus the first composite outcome (second composite outcome). 13 prespecified secondary measures of kidney, eye, and peripheral nerve function were also assessed. Investigators and participants were aware of treatment group assignment. Analysis was done for all patients who were assessed for microvascular outcomes, on the basis of treatment assignment, irrespective of treatments received or compliance to therapies. ACCORD is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00000620. FINDINGS: 10 251 patients were randomly assigned, 5128 to the intensive glycaemia control group and 5123 to standard group. Intensive therapy was stopped before study end because of higher mortality in that group, and patients were transitioned to standard therapy. At transition, the first composite outcome was recorded in 443 of 5107 patients in the intensive group versus 444 of 5108 in the standard group (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88-1.14; p=1.00), and the second composite outcome was noted in 1591 of 5107 versus 1659 of 5108 (0.96, 0.89-1.02; p=0.19). Results were similar at study end (first composite outcome 556 of 5119 vs 586 of 5115 [HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85-1.07, p=0.42]; and second 1956 of 5119 vs 2046 of 5115, respectively [0.95, 0.89-1.01, p=0.12]). Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of albuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy. Seven secondary measures at study end favoured intensive therapy (p<0.05). INTERPRETATION: Microvascular benefits of intensive therapy should be weighed against the increase in total and cardiovascular disease-related mortality, increased weight gain, and high risk for severe hypoglycaemia. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institute on Aging; National Eye Institute; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and General Clinical Research Centers.

The Kidney Score Platform for Patient and Clinician Awareness, Communication, and Management of Kidney Disease: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient awareness, clinician detection, and management of chronic kidney disease remain suboptimal, despite clinical practice guidelines and diverse education programs. OBJECTIVE: This protocol describes a study to develop and investigate the impact of the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Score Platform on chronic kidney disease awareness, communication, and management, by leveraging the Behavior Change Wheel, an implementation science framework that helps identify behavioral intervention targets and functions that address barriers to behavior change. METHODS: We interviewed 20 patients with chronic kidney disease and 11 clinicians to identify patient and clinician behaviors suitable for intervention and barriers to behavior change (eg, limited awareness of chronic kidney disease clinical practice guidelines within primary care settings, limited data analytics to highlight chronic kidney disease care gaps, asymptomatic nature of chronic kidney disease in conjunction with patient reliance on primary care clinicians to determine risk and order kidney testing). Leveraging the Behavior Change Wheel, the Kidney Score Platform was developed with a patient-facing online Risk Calculator and a clinician-facing Clinical Practice Toolkit. The Risk Calculator utilizes risk predictive analytics to provide interactive health information tailored to an individual's chronic kidney disease risk and health status. The Clinical Practice Toolkit assists clinicians in discussing chronic kidney disease with individuals at risk for and with kidney disease and in managing their patient population with chronic kidney disease. The Kidney Score Platform will be tested in 2 Veterans Affairs primary health care settings using a pre-post study design. Outcomes will include changes in patient self-efficacy for chronic kidney disease management (primary outcome), quality of communication with clinicians about chronic kidney disease, and practitioners' knowledge of chronic kidney disease guidelines. Process outcomes will identify usability and adoption of different elements of the Kidney Score Platform using qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS: As of September 2020, usability studies are underway with veterans and clinicians to refine the patient-facing components of the Kidney Score Platform before study initiation. Results and subsequent changes to the Kidney Score Platform will be published at a later date. The study is expected to be completed by December 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study will be used to inform integration of the Kidney Score Platform within primary care settings so that it can serve as a central component of the National Kidney Foundation public awareness campaign to educate, engage, and empower individuals at risk for and living with chronic kidney disease. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/22024.

Beyond Medication Adherence: The Role of Patients' Beliefs and Life Context in Blood Pressure Control.

Objective: Despite numerous interventions to address adherence to antihypertensive medications, continued high rates of uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) suggest a need to better understand patient factors beyond adherence associated with BP control. We examined how patients' BP-related beliefs, and aspects of life context affect BP control, beyond medication adherence. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey of primary care patients with hypertension between 2010 and 2011 (N=103; 93 had complete data on all variables and were included in the regression analyses). We assessed patient sociodemographics (including race/ethnicity), medication adherence, BP-related beliefs, aspects of life context, and used clinical BP assessments. Results: Regression models including sociodemographics, medication adherence, and either beliefs or context consistently predicted BP control. Adding context after beliefs added no predictive value while adding beliefs after context significantly predicted BP control. Practical Implications: Results suggest that when clinicians must choose a dimension on which to intervene, focusing on beliefs would be the most fruitful approach to effecting change in BP control.

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

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

National utilization of antihypertensive medications from 2000 to 2006 in the Veterans Health Administration: focus on thiazide diuretics.

The authors sought to determine the prescribing practices of clinicians treating veterans with hypertension. A descriptive analysis was performed using a national pharmacy database of patients with a diagnosis of hypertension receiving antihypertensive medication in the fiscal years 2000 to 2006. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were the most frequently prescribed antihypertensive class, with utilization increasing from 56.0% in fiscal year 2000 to 63.2% of patients in 2006. Utilization of thiazide-type diuretics increased from 31.9% of patients in fiscal year 2000 to 42.0% in 2006. When patient comorbidities were taken into consideration, 48.1% of patients defined as having uncomplicated hypertension had at least one prescription for a thiazide diuretic in fiscal year 2006. Utilization by monotherapy and combination therapy were also evaluated. The trends in utilization allowed for identification of areas in which a change in prescribing practices may improve blood pressure control and health outcomes in the Veterans Health Administration.

Long-Term Effects of Intensive Glycemic and Blood Pressure Control and Fenofibrate Use on Kidney Outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In people with type 2 diabetes, aggressive control of glycemia, BP, and lipids have resulted in conflicting short-term (<5 years) kidney outcomes. We aimed to determine the long-term kidney effects of these interventions. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) was a multifactorial intervention study in people with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular disease (n=10,251), to examine the effects of intensive glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c <6.0% versus 7%-7.9%), BP control (systolic BP <120 mm Hg versus <140 mm Hg) or fenofibrate versus placebo added to simvastatin on cardiovascular events and death. The glycemia trial lasted 3.7 years and participants were followed for another 6.5 years in ACCORDION, the ACCORD Follow-On Study. The post hoc primary composite kidney outcome was defined as incident macroalbuminuria, creatinine doubling, need for dialysis, or death by any cause. Cox proportional hazards regression estimated the effect of each intervention on the composite outcome and individual components. In secondary outcome analyses, competing risk regression was used to account for the risk of death in incident kidney outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for sociodemographics, randomization groups, and clinical factors. RESULTS: There were 988 cases of incident macroalbuminuria, 954 with doubling of creatinine, 351 requiring dialysis, and 1905 deaths. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the composite outcome with intensive glycemic, BP control, and fenofibrate use compared with standard therapy were 0.92 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.86 to 0.98), 1.16 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.28), and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.06 to 1.27). Multivariable, secondary outcome analyses showed that in the glycemia trial, only macroalbuminuria was significantly decreased (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.77). In the BP and lipid trials, only creatinine doubling was affected (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.30 to 2.06 and HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.61 to 2.49, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In people with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular disease, intensive glycemic control may result in a long-term reduction in macroalbuminuria; however, intensive BP control and fenofibrates may increase the risk for adverse kidney events.

Health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness components of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial: rationale and design.

Diabetes mellitus affects not only life expectancy but also quality of life. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial's health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and cost-effectiveness components will enable the assessment of the relative importance of the various outcomes from the point of view of patients, provide an understanding of the balance between the burdens and benefits of the intervention strategies, and offer valuable insights into adherence. The HRQOL measures used include the Diabetes Symptoms Distress Checklist; the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Version 2 (SF-36) (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA); the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) depression measure (Pfizer Inc, New York, NY); the World Health Organization (WHO) Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ); and the EuroQol Feeling Thermometer (EuroQol Group, Rotterdam, Netherlands). The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in ACCORD will provide information about the relative economic efficiency of the different interventions being compared in the trial. Effectiveness will be measured in terms of cardiovascular event-free years gained and quality-adjusted life-years gained (using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 [HUI-3] [Health Utilities Inc., Dundas, Ontario, Canada] to measure health-state utility). Costs will be direct medical costs assessed from the perspective of a single-payer health system collected by means of patient and clinic cost forms and hospital discharge summaries. The primary HRQOL and CEA hypotheses mirror those in the main ACCORD trial, addressing the effects of the 3 main ACCORD interventions considered separately. There are also secondary (pairwise reference case) comparisons that do not assume independence of treatment effects on HRQOL. CEA will be done on a subsample of 4,311 ACCORD participants and HRQOL on a subsample of 2,053 nested within the CEA subsample. Most assessments will occur through questionnaires at baseline and at 12, 36, and 48 months.

The role of comorbidities in patients' hypertension self-management.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand barriers to hypertension self-management in patients with hypertension and comorbidities. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 48 patients with uncontrolled hypertension and at least one comorbidity to learn about beliefs and behaviors that might affect hypertension self-management. Using a grounded theory strategy, we analyzed interview transcripts detailing patients' hypertension self-management behaviors vis-à-vis a framework including Explanatory Models-a patient's understanding of the pathophysiology, cause, course, treatment, and severity of an illness, such as hypertension. RESULTS: We identified four factors that interfered with hypertension self-management. (1) Interdependence: Participants saw hypertension as interconnected to their comorbidities and subsequently had difficulty separating information about their illnesses. (2) Low priority: Compared to other conditions, participants assigned hypertension a lower priority. (3) Conflicts: Participants struggled with conflicts between hypertension self-management practices and those for comorbidities. (4) Managing multiple medications: Polypharmacy led to patients' confusion and concern about taking medications as prescribed. DISCUSSION: Participants did not experience hypertension as a discreet clinical condition; rather, they self-managed hypertension concurrently with other conditions, leading to a breakdown in hypertension self-management. We provide strategies to address each of the four barriers to better equip providers in addressing their clinically salient concerns.

Is silent myocardial infarction more common in women with type 2 diabetes than in men?

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine if silent myocardial infarction (MI) is more common in women with type 2 diabetes than in men. Our secondary aim was to examine the relationships between silent MI and risk factors for cardiovascular disease. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) database was used to determine if women had more silent MI on baseline electrocardiograms (ECGs) than did men with a similar unremarkable cardiovascular history. MI was diagnosed using ECG analysis according to the Minnesota code. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to compare demographic and clinical associations. Interactive effects of risk factors by gender were tested using a forward selection algorithm. RESULTS: Men were found to have a higher prevalence of silent MI on baseline ECGs than women (6% vs 4%, P = .001). Women had lower odds of silent MI than men after adjusting for other risk factors (OR = 0.80, P = .04). Race and ethnicity were significantly associated with silent MI (P = .02), with Asians having the highest and African Americans and Hispanics having lower odds relative to whites. CONCLUSIONS: Our main findings provide no evidence that silent MI, as detected by the Minnesota code, was more common in women than in men in the ACCORD cohort. If, as in the general population, the women in ACCORD are found to have a higher heart disease mortality rate than the men, it seems unlikely that failure to recognize clinically silent heart disease in the years before study enrollment could be a major cause.

Effect of intensive versus standard blood pressure control on depression and health-related quality of life in type 2 diabetes: the ACCORD trial.

OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that intensive (systolic blood pressure [SBP] <120 mmHg) rather than standard (SBP 130-139 mmHg) blood pressure (BP) control improves health-related quality of life (HRQL) in those with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Subjects were 1,028 ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) BP trial HRQL substudy participants who completed baseline and one or more 12-, 36-, or 48-month HRQL evaluations. Multivariable linear regression assessed impact of BP treatment assignment on change in HRQL. RESULTS: Over 4.0 years of follow-up, no significant differences occurred in five of six HRQL measures. Those assigned to intensive (vs. standard) BP control had statistically significant worsening of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short-form health survey (SF36) physical component scores (-0.8 vs. -0.2; P = 0.02), but magnitude of change was not clinically significant. Findings persisted across all prespecified subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive BP control in the ACCORD trial did not have a clinically significant impact, either positive or negative, on depression or patient-reported HRQL.