Cited by 12Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesSodium Intake and HealthCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention

More Versus Less Blood Pressure Lowering: An Update

Open access
Atkins, Emily R., Rodgers, Anthony·2016·Clinical Therapeutics

Abstract

Purpose This article summarizes the results of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering, including an update with the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) results. We discuss the consistency of results within this set of trials (eg, ACCORD [Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes] and SPRINT) and the results in the context of other BP-lowering trials, including the recently published HOPE3 (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3) study.Methods This study was a narrative review with updated meta-analysis from systematic review of trials comparing more- versus less-intensive BP lowering.Findings With the addition of SPRINT, there are >20 trials comparing more- versus less-intensive treatment with 54,350 participants overall. Over an average of 3.9 years of follow-up, the average systolic BP was 133 mm Hg in the more-intensive treatment arms and 140 mm Hg in the less-intensive treatment arms. More-intensive BP lowering reduced the risk of major vascular events, with benefits seen across a range of groups defined according to baseline systolic BP (120-139 mm Hg, 140-159 mm Hg, or ≥160 mm Hg), age (<70 or >70 years), and main entry criterion (hypertension, diabetes, or renal disease).Implications The evidence accumulated thus far provides clear evidence of the benefits of BP lowering in the 120- to 140-mm Hg range for various high-risk patient groups. Although intensive BP lowering has side effects, these trials indicate that the benefits will predominate for those at high risk of major vascular events.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.08.007

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure mean above 135/85 mm Hg is linked to roughly double the likelihood of a cardiovascular event compared with values below that threshold, independent of office blood pressure.

    “Persons whose 24-hour ABPM mean BP exceeds 135/85 mm Hg are nearly twice as likely to have a CV event as those with values that remain <135/85 mm Hg, irrespective of the level of the office BP.”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [229]

    The section on recent evidence assessing more- versus less-intensive BP lowering discusses treatment trials and office BP measurement, not 24-hour ambulatory BP. Searches for ABPM, the 135/85 mm Hg threshold, and a near-doubling of cardiovascular-event likelihood independent of office BP found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Atkins, E. R., & Rodgers, A.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Venue
Clinical Therapeutics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-10
Volume
38
Issue
10
Pages
2135-2141
ISSN
0149-2918 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2520168155
Cited by
12
References
31
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Sodium Intake and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Keywords
intensive blood pressure lowering, systolic blood pressure, SPRINT trial, ACCORD trial, major vascular events, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, kidney disease, antihypertensive therapy, treatment efficacy and safety
MeSH terms
Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Pressure, Cardiovascular Diseases, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Hypertension, Kidney Diseases, Risk Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review