Cited by 762Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Long-term follow-up after tight control of blood pressure in type 2 diabetes

Open access
Holman, Rury R., Paul, Sanjoy K., Bethel, M. Angelyn, Neil, H. Andrew W., Matthews, David R.·2008·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Post-trial monitoring of patients in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) examined whether risk reductions for microvascular and macrovascular disease, achieved with the use of improved blood-pressure control during the trial, would be sustained. METHODS: Among 5102 UKPDS patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus, we randomly assigned, over a 4-year period beginning in 1987, 1148 patients with hypertension to tight or less-tight blood-pressure control regimens. The 884 patients who underwent post-trial monitoring were asked to attend annual UKPDS clinics for the first 5 years, but no attempt was made to maintain their previously assigned therapies. Annual questionnaires completed by patients and general practitioners were used to follow patients who were unable to attend the clinic in years 1 through 5, and questionnaires were used for all patients in years 6 to 10. Seven prespecified aggregate clinical end points were examined on an intention-to-treat basis, according to the previous randomization categories. RESULTS: Differences in blood pressure between the two groups during the trial disappeared within 2 years after termination of the trial. Significant relative risk reductions found during the trial for any diabetes-related end point, diabetes-related death, microvascular disease, and stroke in the group receiving tight, as compared with less tight, blood-pressure control were not sustained during the post-trial follow-up. No risk reductions were seen during or after the trial for myocardial infarction or death from any cause, but a risk reduction for peripheral vascular disease associated with tight blood-pressure control became significant (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of previously improved blood-pressure control were not sustained when between-group differences in blood pressure were lost. Early improvement in blood-pressure control in patients with both type 2 diabetes and hypertension was associated with a reduced risk of complications, but it appears that good blood-pressure control must be continued if the benefits are to be maintained. (UKPDS 81; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN75451837.)

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa0806359

Cites

25 of 25 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. VIII. Study design, progress and perfor- mance. Diabetologia 1991;34:877-90. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group.
  2. II. Increased risk of cardiovascular com- plications in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients. J Hypertens 1993;11:319-25.
  3. Therapeutic requirements to maintain tight blood pressure control. Diabetologia 1996;39:1554-61.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holman, R. R., Paul, S. K., Bethel, M. A., Neil, H. A. W., & Matthews, D. R.
Affiliations
  • Churchill Hospital (GB)
  • Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism (GB)
  • NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (GB)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2008-10-09
Volume
359
Issue
15
Pages
1565-1576
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2141713511
Cited by
762
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 64
FWCI
62.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Sanofi
  • Wellcome Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Diabetes UK
  • University of Oxford
  • Bayer HealthCare
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Servier
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council
  • St. George's, University of London
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, hypertension, tight blood pressure control, microvascular complications, macrovascular complications, stroke, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes mortality, UKPDS
MeSH terms
Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Cardiovascular Diseases, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diabetic Angiopathies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk, Kaplan-Meier Estimate

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