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.).

Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control on Probable Dementia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are currently no proven treatments to reduce the risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Objective: To evaluate the effect of intensive blood pressure control on risk of dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 102 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico among adults aged 50 years or older with hypertension but without diabetes or history of stroke. Randomization began on November 8, 2010. The trial was stopped early for benefit on its primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular events) and all-cause mortality on August 20, 2015. The final date for follow-up of cognitive outcomes was July 22, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to a systolic blood pressure goal of either less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment group; n = 4678) or less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment group; n = 4683). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary cognitive outcome was occurrence of adjudicated probable dementia. Secondary cognitive outcomes included adjudicated mild cognitive impairment and a composite outcome of mild cognitive impairment or probable dementia. Results: Among 9361 randomized participants (mean age, 67.9 years; 3332 women [35.6%]), 8563 (91.5%) completed at least 1 follow-up cognitive assessment. The median intervention period was 3.34 years. During a total median follow-up of 5.11 years, adjudicated probable dementia occurred in 149 participants in the intensive treatment group vs 176 in the standard treatment group (7.2 vs 8.6 cases per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04). Intensive BP control significantly reduced the risk of mild cognitive impairment (14.6 vs 18.3 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95) and the combined rate of mild cognitive impairment or probable dementia (20.2 vs 24.1 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.97). Conclusions and Relevance: Among ambulatory adults with hypertension, treating to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg compared with a goal of less than 140 mm Hg did not result in a significant reduction in the risk of probable dementia. Because of early study termination and fewer than expected cases of dementia, the study may have been underpowered for this end point. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Association of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control With Cerebral White Matter Lesions.

Importance: The effect of intensive blood pressure lowering on brain health remains uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the association of intensive blood pressure treatment with cerebral white matter lesion and brain volumes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A substudy of a multicenter randomized clinical trial of hypertensive adults 50 years or older without a history of diabetes or stroke at 27 sites in the United States. Randomization began on November 8, 2010. The overall trial was stopped early because of benefit for its primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular events) and all-cause mortality on August 20, 2015. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on a subset of participants at baseline (n = 670) and at 4 years of follow-up (n = 449); final follow-up date was July 1, 2016. Interventions: Participants were randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of either less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment, n = 355) or less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment, n = 315). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in total white matter lesion volume from baseline. Change in total brain volume was a secondary outcome. Results: Among 670 recruited patients who had baseline MRI (mean age, 67.3 [SD, 8.2] years; 40.4% women), 449 (67.0%) completed the follow-up MRI at a median of 3.97 years after randomization, after a median intervention period of 3.40 years. In the intensive treatment group, based on a robust linear mixed model, mean white matter lesion volume increased from 4.57 to 5.49 cm3 (difference, 0.92 cm3 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.14]) vs an increase from 4.40 to 5.85 cm3 (difference, 1.45 cm3 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.70]) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference in change, -0.54 cm3 [95% CI, -0.87 to -0.20]). Mean total brain volume decreased from 1134.5 to 1104.0 cm3 (difference, -30.6 cm3 [95% CI, -32.3 to -28.8]) in the intensive treatment group vs a decrease from 1134.0 to 1107.1 cm3 (difference, -26.9 cm3 [95% CI, 24.8 to 28.8]) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference in change, -3.7 cm3 [95% CI, -6.3 to -1.1]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among hypertensive adults, targeting an SBP of less than 120 mm Hg, compared with less than 140 mm Hg, was significantly associated with a smaller increase in cerebral white matter lesion volume and a greater decrease in total brain volume, although the differences were small. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov 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.).

Recruitment strategies and challenges in a large intervention trial: Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial is a multicenter, randomized clinical trial of 9361 participants with hypertension who are ≥50 years old. The trial is designed to evaluate the effect of intensive systolic blood pressure control (systolic blood pressure goal <120 mm Hg) compared to standard control (systolic blood pressure goal <140 mm Hg) on cardiovascular events using commonly prescribed antihypertensive medications and lifestyle modification. OBJECTIVE: To describe the recruitment strategies and lessons learned during recruitment of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial cohort and five targeted participant subgroups: pre-existing cardiovascular disease, pre-existing chronic kidney disease, age ≥75 years, women, and minorities. METHODS: In collaboration with the National Institutes of Health Project Office and Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial Coordinating Center, five Clinical Center Networks oversaw clinical site selection, recruitment, and trial activities. Recruitment began on 8 November 2010 and ended on 15 March 2013 (about 28 months). Various recruitment strategies were used, including mass mailing, brochures, referrals from healthcare providers or friends, posters, newspaper ads, radio ads, and electronic medical record searches. RESULTS: Recruitment was scheduled to last 24 months to enroll a target of 9250 participants; in just over 28 months, the trial enrolled 9361 participants. The trial screened 14,692 volunteers, with 33% of initial screens originating from the use of mass mailing lists. Screening results show that participants also responded to recruitment efforts through referral by Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial staff, healthcare providers, or friends (45%); brochures or posters placed in clinic waiting areas (15%); and television, radio, newspaper, Internet ads, or toll-free numbers (8%). The overall recruitment yield (number randomized/number screened) was 64% (9361 randomized/14,692 screened), 77% for those with cardiovascular disease, 79% for those with chronic kidney disease, 70% for those aged ≥75 years, 55% for women, and 61% for minorities. As recruitment was observed to lag behind expectations, additional clinics were included and inclusion criteria were broadened, keeping event rates and trial power in mind. As overall recruitment improved, a greater focus on subgroup recruitment was implemented. CONCLUSION: Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial met its overall projected recruitment goal using diverse, locally adapted enrollment strategies to specifically target persons with cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, ≥75 years old, women, and minority subgroups. The trial exceeded its recruitment goal for minorities but found it a challenge to meet the competing demands of the targeted goals for recruiting into the remaining four subgroups. Important lessons include the imperative to monitor the recruitment process carefully, decide early to add new clinics or modify inclusion and exclusion criteria if recruitment lags, and consider limiting enrollment to subgroups only. We found benefit in using multiple recruitment sources simultaneously; mass mailing produced the largest number of participants, but referrals resulted in the greater randomization yield.

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.

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.

Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control in Adults 80 Years or Older: A Secondary Analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) control in older adults with hypertension, considering cognitive and physical function. DESIGN: Secondary analysis. SETTING: Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) PARTICIPANTS: Adults 80 years or older. INTERVENTION: Participants with hypertension but without diabetes (N = 1167) were randomized to an SBP target below 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) vs a target below 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). MEASUREMENTS: We measured the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), mortality, changes in renal function, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), probable dementia, and serious adverse events. Gait speed was assessed via a 4-m walk test, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to quantify baseline cognitive function. RESULTS: Intensive treatment led to significant reductions in cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR] = .66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .49-.90), mortality (HR = .67; 95% CI = .48-.93), and MCI (HR = .70; 95% CI = .51-.96). There was a significant interaction (P < .001) whereby participants with higher baseline scores on the MoCA derived strong benefit from intensive treatment for a composite of CVD and mortality (HR = .40; 95% CI = .28-.57), with no appreciable benefit in participants with lower scores on the MoCA (HR = 1.33 = 95% CI = .87-2.03). There was no evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects with respect to gait speed. Rates of acute kidney injury and declines of at least 30% in estimated glomerular filtration rate were increased in the intensive treatment group with no between-group differences in the rate of injurious falls. CONCLUSION: In adults aged 80 years or older, intensive SBP control lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events, MCI, and death, with increased risk of changes to kidney function. The cardiovascular and mortality benefits of intensive SBP control may not extend to older adults with lower baseline cognitive function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01206062. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:496-504, 2020.

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.

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.