Cited by 3,598Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

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

Open access
The ACCORD Study Group·2010·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

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.)

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/nejmoa1001286

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • BP lowering may have an additive and significant impact on morbidity and mortality, particularly in people with standard versus intensive glycemic control.

    “Although glucose and lipid management remain important, BP lowering may have an additive and significant impact on morbidity and mortality, particularly in persons with standard vs intensive glycemic control.185,201,202,226,227”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [201]

    The Discussion (page not provided) states that intensive blood-pressure control did not significantly reduce the primary cardiovascular outcome or death from any cause. The Clinical Outcomes results report no significant interactions among prespecified subgroups, rather than a particular benefit under standard versus intensive glycemic control. The trial did find a reduction in stroke, but that does not establish the claimed significant impact on morbidity and mortality. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Clinical trial data show that intensifying BP-lowering therapy slows the progression of DKD and retinopathy.

    “Clinical trial data show that intensifying therapy with BP-lowering medications slows the progression of DKD and retinopathy, though vigilance in monitoring renal function during intensive BP therapy is recommended.185,186,201–203”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [201]

    The Results (Adverse Events; page unavailable) report less macroalbuminuria with intensive BP treatment, but also lower kidney filtration rates and no difference in end-stage renal disease or dialysis. The Discussion says the implications for renal outcomes are uncertain. Our copy does not report that intensive treatment slowed retinopathy progression, so it does not support the full claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Analysis of UKPDS data suggests that BP lowering should be a priority in managing a person presenting with newly diagnosed hypertension and diabetes.

    “Analysis of the UKPDS data suggests that BP lowering should be a priority in managing a person presenting with newly diagnosed hypertension and DM.”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [201]

    The Discussion (page not provided) reports that UKPDS found fewer cardiovascular events with antihypertensive therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes, supporting the importance of BP lowering. It does not specifically address people presenting with newly diagnosed hypertension and diabetes or explicitly rank BP lowering as a management priority. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of albuminuria.

    “Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of albuminuria (67)(68)(69)(70), and among people with type 1 or 2 diabetes with established CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m 2 and UACR $300 mg/g creatinine), ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy reduces the risk of progression to ESKD (71)(72)(73)(74)(75)(76)(77)(78)(79)(80).”

    From 11. Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Results (Adverse Events) report significantly less macroalbuminuria at the final visit with intensive than with standard blood-pressure therapy. This supports a benefit for macroalbuminuria in people with type 2 diabetes, but does not establish that antihypertensive therapy generally reduces the risk of albuminuria compared with no therapy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of albuminuria.

    “Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of albuminuria (68-71), and among people with type 1 or 2 diabetes with established CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m 2 and UACR ≥300 mg/g creatinine), ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy reduces the risk of progression to kidney failure (72)(73)(74)(75)(76)(77)(78)(79)(80)(81).”

    From 11. Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026 (2026) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Results (Adverse Events; page unavailable) report significantly less macroalbuminuria at the final visit with intensive than with standard blood-pressure therapy in people with type 2 diabetes. This supports a narrower claim, but does not establish that antihypertensive therapy generally reduces the risk of albuminuria compared with no therapy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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
The ACCORD Study Group
Corresponding author
The ACCORD Study Group
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2010-04-29
Volume
362
Issue
17
Pages
1575-1585
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2136145230
Cited by
3,598
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 98 · 2025: 149 · 2024: 140 · 2023: 144 · 2022: 140 · 2021: 179 · 2020: 202 · 2019: 221 · 2018: 298 · 2017: 274 · 2016: 279 · 2015: 232 · 2014: 243 · 2013: 223 · 2012: 277
FWCI
217.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (n01hc95183-23-0-0, n01hc95180-24-0-1, n01hc95184-24-0-1, n01hc95181-23-0-1, n01hc95182-23-0-1, n01hc95178-28-0-1, n01hc95179-25-0-0)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (N01- HC-95181, R01HL073030, N01 HC095184, N01-HC- 95180, N01-HC-95178, N01 HC095182, N01 HC095181, Y01 HC001010, Y1-HC-9035, N01-HC-095183, N01 HC095178, N01-HC-95184, N01HC95179, N01 HC095180, Y1-HC-1010, N01‐HC‐95183, N01-HC-95182, N01 HC095179)
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, intensive blood pressure control, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive therapy, cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, high cardiovascular risk, primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers
MeSH terms
Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Pressure, Cardiovascular Diseases, Creatinine, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glomerular Filtration Rate, Humans, Hypertension, Hypokalemia, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Proportional Hazards Models, Stroke, 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