CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Differential prognostic impact of treatment strategy among patients with left main versus non-left main bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) Registry II High-Risk Coronary Plaque Regression After Intensive Lifestyle Intervention in Nonbstructive Coronary Disease: A Randomized Study 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure Comparison of newer generation self-expandable vs. balloon-expandable valves in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial Mechanisms of in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation: intravascular ultrasound analysis The Year in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020: Coronary Prevention: Looking back on the Year in Cardiovascular Medicine for 2020 in the field of coronary prevention is Professor Ramon Estruch, Dr Luis Ruilope, and Professor Francesco Cosentino. Mark Nicholls meets them Edoxaban versus Vitamin K Antagonist for Atrial Fibrillation after TAVR Value of Coronary Artery Calcium Scanning in Association With the Net Benefit of Aspirin in Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention. Effects of Icosapent Ethyl on Total Ischemic Events: From REDUCE-IT

Original ResearchVolume 72, Issue 11, September 2018

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Generalizing Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment to Adults With Diabetes Mellitus

SA Berkowitz, JB Sussman, DE Jonas et al. Keywords: diabetes mellitus; generalizability; hypertension transportability

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Controversy over blood pressure (BP) treatment targets for individuals with diabetes is in part due to conflicting perspectives about generalizability of available trial data.


OBJECTIVES - The authors sought to estimate how results from the largest clinical trial of intensive BP treatment among adults with diabetes would generalize to the U.S. population.

METHODS - The authors used transportability methods to reweight individual patient data from the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) BP trial (N = 4,507) of intensive (goal systolic BP <120 mm Hg) versus standard (goal systolic BP <140 mm Hg) treatment to better represent the demographic and clinical risk factors of the U.S. population of adults with diabetes (data from NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] 2005 to 2014, n = 1,943). The primary outcome was the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Analysis used weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models with robust standard errors.

RESULTS - The ACCORD BP sample had less racial/ethnic diversity and more elevated cardiovascular risk factors than the NHANES participants. Weighted results significantly favored intensive BP treatment, unlike unweighted results (hazard ratio for primary outcome in intensive versus standard treatment in weighted analyses: 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.91; in unweighted analyses: hazard ratio: 0.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.07). Over 5 years, the weighted results estimate a number needed to treat of 34, and number needed to harm of 55.

CONCLUSIONS - After reweighting to better reflect the U.S. adult population with diabetes, intensive BP therapy was associated with significantly lower risk for cardiovascular events. However, data were limited among racial/ethnic minorities and those with lower cardiovascular risk.