Search

Background: Dyslipidemia is common in patients with chronic kidney disease. The role of statin therapy in the progression of kidney disease is unclear.Study Design: Prospective randomized clinical trial, post hoc analyses.Setting& Participants: 10,060 participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (lipid-lowering component) stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): less than 60, 60 to 89, and 90 or greater mL/min/1.73 m(2). Mean follow-up was 4.8 years.Intervention: Randomized; pravastatin, 40 mg/d, or usual care.Outcomes& Measurements: Total, high-density lipoprotein, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; end-stage renal disease (ESRD), eGFR.Results: Through year 6, total cholesterol levels decreased in the pravastatin (-20.7%) and usual-care groups (-11.2%). No significant differences were seen between groups for rates of ESRD (1.36 v 1.45/100 patient-years; P = 0.9), composite end points of ESRD and 50% or 25% decrease in eGFR, or rate of change in eGFR. Findings were consistent across eGFR strata. In patients with eGFR of 90 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or greater, the pravastatin arm tended to have a higher eGFR.Limitations: Proteinuria data unavailable, post hoc analyses, unconfirmed validity of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation in normal eGFR range, statin drop-in rate in usual-care group with small cholesterol differential between groups.Conclusions: In hypertensive patients with moderate dyslipidemia and decreased eGFR, pravastatin was not superior to usual care in preventing clinical renal outcomes. This was consistent across the strata of baseline eGFR. However, benefit from statin therapy may depend on the degree of the cholesterol level decrease achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: The population of older adults 60-79 years globally is projected to double from 800 million to 1.6 billion between 2015 and 2050, while adults ≥ 80 years were forecast to more than triple from 125 to 430 million. The risk for cardiovascular events doubles with each decade of aging and each 20 mmHg increase of systolic blood pressure. Thus, successful management of hypertension in older adults is critical in mitigating the projected global health and economic burden of cardiovascular disease., Recent Findings: Women live longer than men, yet with aging systolic blood pressure and prevalent hypertension increase more, and hypertension control decreases more than in men, i.e., hypertension in older adults is disproportionately a women's health issue. Among older adults who are healthy to mildly frail, the absolute benefit of hypertension control, including more intensive control, on cardiovascular events is greater in adults ≥ 80 than 60-79 years old. The absolute rate of serious adverse events during antihypertensive therapy is greater in adults ≥ 80 years older than 60-79 years, yet the excess adverse event rate with intensive versus standard care is only moderately increased. Among adults ≥ 80 years, benefits of more intensive therapy appear non-existent to reversed with moderate to marked frailty and when cognitive function is less than roughly the twenty-fifth percentile. Accordingly, assessment of functional and cognitive status is important in setting blood pressure targets in older adults. Given substantial absolute cardiovascular benefits of more intensive antihypertensive therapy in independent-living older adults, this group merits shared-decision making for hypertension targets., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: Recent European Guidelines for Diabetes, Prediabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases introduced a shift in managing patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for or established cardiovascular (CV) disease by recommending GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial glucose-lowering therapy. This is questioned since outcome trials of these drug classes had metformin as background therapy. In this post hoc analysis, the effect of dulaglutide on CV events was investigated according to the baseline metformin therapy by means of a subgroup analysis of the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial., Research Design and Methods: Patients in REWIND (n = 9901; women: 46.3%; mean age: 66.2 years) had type 2 diabetes and either a previous CV event (31%) or high CV risk (69%). They were randomized (1:1) to sc. dulaglutide (1.5 mg/weekly) or placebo in addition to standard of care. The primary outcome was the first of a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. Key secondary outcomes included a microvascular composite endpoint, all-cause death, and heart failure. The effect of dulaglutide in patients with and without baseline metformin was evaluated by a Cox regression hazard model with baseline metformin, dulaglutide assignment, and their interaction as independent variables. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by a Cox regression model with adjustments for factors differing at baseline between people with vs. without metformin, identified using the backward selection., Results: Compared to patients with metformin at baseline (n = 8037; 81%), those without metformin (n = 1864; 19%) were older and slightly less obese and had higher proportions of women, prior CV events, heart failure, and renal disease. The primary outcome occurred in 976 (12%) participants with baseline metformin and in 281 (15%) without. There was no significant difference in the effect of dulaglutide on the primary outcome in patients with vs. without metformin at baseline [HR 0.92 (CI 0.81-1.05) vs. 0.78 (CI 0.61-0.99); interaction P = 0.18]. Findings for key secondary outcomes were similar in patients with and without baseline metformin., Conclusion: This analysis suggests that the cardioprotective effect of dulaglutide is unaffected by the baseline use of metformin therapy., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose of Review: While we started clinical trials evaluating the benefit of lowering systolic BP's >160 mm Hg and diastolic BPs of <130 mm Hg, the latest guideline suggests a target of <130/80 mm Hg in those with hypertension. This article summarizes exactly how we got to where we are looking over the last half-century., Recent Findings: Our understanding of systolic and diastolic blood pressure targets to improve cardiovascular outcomes has changed substantially over the past 5 decades. Regarding diastolic blood pressure targets to improve cardiovascular outcomes, initially the VA1 in 1967 had set the goal to <115 mmHg. Over time, several studies including the VA2, Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT), and United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group 38 (UKPDS38) highlighted even greater cardiovascular benefit with lower diastolic targets <80 mmHg, especially in diabetic patients. Of equal importance, multiple studies have focused the attention to systolic blood pressure targets. Starting in 1948 with the Framingham study, passing through the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP), Syst-Eur and Syst-China trials, all have set the systolic blood pressure goal <150 mmHg. Most recently, the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial showed an improved cardiovascular outcome with a systolic blood pressure target <140 mmHg in patients with type 2 diabetes, while the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) in non-diabetic patients moved it closer to 120 mmHg. There is "no one size fits all" when it comes to blood pressure targets to improve cardiovascular outcomes. To progress our understanding of individual blood pressure goals, future studies might develop a more standardized approach to highlight characteristics such as design and end point definitions while allowing clinical practitioners greater latitude to adapt guideline recommendations to individual patient characteristics and clinical needs.

The diagnosis and management of hypertension, a common cardiovascular risk factor among the general population, have been based primarily on the measurement of blood pressure (BP) in the office. BP may differ considerably when measured in the office and when measured outside of the office setting, and higher out-of-office BP is associated with increased cardiovascular risk independent of office BP. Self-measured BP monitoring, the measurement of BP by an individual outside of the office at home, is a validated approach for out-of-office BP measurement. Several national and international hypertension guidelines endorse self-measured BP monitoring. Indications include the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension and the identification of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension. Other indications include confirming the diagnosis of resistant hypertension and detecting morning hypertension. Validated self-measured BP monitoring devices that use the oscillometric method are preferred, and a standardized BP measurement and monitoring protocol should be followed. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials indicates that self-measured BP monitoring is associated with a reduction in BP and improved BP control, and the benefits of self-measured BP monitoring are greatest when done along with cointerventions. The addition of self-measured BP monitoring to office BP monitoring is cost-effective compared with office BP monitoring alone or usual care among individuals with high office BP. The use of self-measured BP monitoring is commonly reported by both individuals and providers. Therefore, self-measured BP monitoring has high potential for improving the diagnosis and management of hypertension in the United States. Randomized controlled trials examining the impact of self-measured BP monitoring on cardiovascular outcomes are needed. To adequately address barriers to the implementation of self-measured BP monitoring, financial investment is needed in the following areas: improving education and training of individuals and providers, building health information technology capacity, incorporating self-measured BP readings into clinical performance measures, supporting cointerventions, and enhancing reimbursement.

Orthostatic hypotension (OH) is associated with hypertension and diabetes mellitus. However, in populations with both hypertension and diabetes mellitus, its prevalence, the effect of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure (BP) targets on incident OH, and its prognostic significance are unclear. In 4266 participants in the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) BP trial, seated BP was measured 3×, followed by readings every minute for 3 minutes after standing. Orthostatic BP change, calculated as the minimum standing minus the mean seated systolic BP and diastolic BP, was assessed at baseline, 12 months, and 48 months. The relationship between OH and clinical outcomes (total and cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, heart failure hospitalization or death and the primary composite outcome of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death) was assessed using proportional hazards analysis. Consensus OH, defined by orthostatic decline in systolic BP ≥20 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥10 mm Hg, occurred at ≥1 time point in 20% of participants. Neither age nor systolic BP treatment target (intensive, <120 mm Hg versus standard, <140 mm Hg) was related to OH incidence. Over a median follow-up of 46.9 months, OH was associated with increased risk of total death (hazard ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.36) and heart failure death/hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.85, 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.93), but not with the primary outcome or other prespecified outcomes. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension, OH was common, not associated with intensive versus standard BP treatment goals, and predicted increased mortality and heart failure events., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

To evaluate the effects of achieved systolic blood pressure (SBP) during treatment on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, the authors measured event rates of a composite primary endpoint (CV death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke) at on-treatment SBPs of ≥140 mm Hg and the 10 mm Hg intervals of <140 mm Hg, <130 mm Hg, and <120 mm Hg in 6459 patients with diabetes (mean age, 67) and 4246 patients without diabetes (mean age, 69) from the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events in Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial. In the diabetic cohort, the primary endpoint was 49% lower (P<.001) at <140 mm Hg than at ≥140 mm Hg, and the separate components of this endpoint were also significantly reduced. Further SBP reductions did not improve outcomes, and at <120 mm Hg they were no longer different (except for stroke) from ≥140 mm Hg. In contrast, in the nondiabetic cohort, the primary endpoint event rate fell steadily (although not significantly) through the decreasing SBP categories until it was reduced by 45% (P=.0413) at <120 mm Hg. Total stroke rates for both the diabetic (-56%, P=.0120) and nondiabetic (-68%, P=.0067) cohorts were lowest at <120 mm Hg, and adverse renal events (serum creatinine increase ≥50%) were significantly lowest in the range of 130 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg for both cohorts. Diabetic patients (<140 mm Hg or <130 mm Hg) and nondiabetic patients (<120 mm Hg) may require different SBP targets for optimal CV protection, although stroke and renal considerations should also influence the selection of blood pressure targets., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Managing cardiovascular (CV) risk is an important part of caring for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, as the disease itself confers CV risk. Many CV risk factors (such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and obesity) have been found to be more common among individuals with diabetes than in the general population. A growing body of evidence provides guidance for clinicians on how to balance control of hyperglycemia with management of these risk factors. Newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents have been associated with beneficial effects on several CV risk factors; several studies evaluating the effect of these newer diabetic medications on CV outcomes have been published, and several more are in progress. While evidence continues to unfold about the benefits of risk factor control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, this article reviews evidence related to risk-factor control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as well as recent findings on the effect of newer drug classes on CV risk factors and outcomes. Favorably altering CV risk factors appears to improve outcomes, and is more important now than ever before.

Background: Hypertension is a major risk factor for peripheral artery disease (PAD). Little is known about relative efficacy of antihypertensive treatments for preventing PAD., Objectives: To compare, by randomized treatment groups, hospitalized or revascularized PAD rates and subsequent morbidity and mortality among participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lower Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)., Design: Randomized, double-blind, active-control trial in high-risk hypertensive participants., Participants: Eight hundred thirty participants with specified secondary outcome of lower extremity PAD events during the randomized phase of ALLHAT., Interventions/events: In-trial PAD events were reported during ALLHAT (1994-2002). Post-trial mortality data through 2006 were obtained from administrative databases. Mean follow-up was 8.8 years., Main Measures: Baseline characteristics and intermediate outcomes in three treatment groups, using the Kaplan-Meier method to calculate cumulative event rates and post-PAD mortality rates, Cox proportional hazards regression model for hazard ratios and 95 % confidence intervals, and multivariate Cox regression models to examine risk differences among treatment groups., Key Results: Following adjustment for baseline characteristics, neither participants assigned to the calcium-channel antagonist amlodipine nor to the ACE-inhibitor lisinopril showed a difference in risk of clinically advanced PAD compared with those in the chlorthalidone arm (HR, 0.86; 95 % CI, 0.72-1.03 and HR, 0.98; 95 % CI, 0.83-1.17, respectively). Of the 830 participants with in-trial PAD events, 63 % died compared to 34 % of those without PAD; there were no significant treatment group differences for subsequent nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularizations, strokes, heart failure, or mortality., Conclusions: Neither amlodipine nor lisinopril showed superiority over chlorthalidone in reducing clinically advanced PAD risk. These findings reinforce the compelling need for comparative outcome trials examining treatment of PAD in high-risk hypertensive patients. Once PAD develops, cardiovascular event and mortality risk is high, regardless of type of antihypertensive treatment.

Hypertensive heart disease is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the United States. Despite widespread availability of medical therapy, it remains a challenge to treat. Autonomic nervous system imbalance resulting in overactivity of the sympathetic nervous system is integral to the development of hypertension and ultimately the development of hypertensive heart disease. Although the results with renal sympathetic denervation so far have been encouraging, optimism has recently been tempered with the broadcast alert from Medtronic, the sponsor of Symplicity HTN-3, that the trial did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint. The principal focus of this article is to review the developments in renal sympathetic denervation for the treatment of resistant hypertension., (©2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background/aims: The role of statins in preventing cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is unclear. This paper compares cardiovascular outcomes with pravastatin vs. usual care, stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)., Methods: Post-hoc analyses of a prospective randomized open-label clinical trial; 10,151 participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (lipid-lowering component) were randomized to pravastatin 40 mg/day or usual care. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years., Results: Through Year 6, total cholesterol declined in pravastatin (-20.7%) and usualcare groups (-11.2%). Use of statin therapy in the pravastatin group was 89.8% (Year 2) and 87.0% (Year 6). Usual-care group statin use increased from 8.2% (Year 2) to 23.5% (Year 6). By primary intention-to-treat analyses, no significant differences were seen between groups for coronary heart disease (CHD), total mortality or combined cardiovascular disease; findings were consistent across eGFR strata. In exploratory "as-treated" analyses (patients actually using pravastatin vs. not using), pravastatin therapy was associated with lower mortality (HR = 0.76 (0.68 - 0.85), p<0.001) and lover CHD (HR=0.84 (0.73-0.97), p=0.01), but not combined cardiovascular disease (HR=0.95 (0.88-1.04), p=0.30). Total cholesterol reduction of 10 mg/dl from baseline to Year 2 was associated with 5% lower CHD risk., Conclusions: In hypertensive patients with moderate dyslipidemia, pravastatin was not superior to usual care in preventing total mortality or CHD independent of baseline eGFR level. However, exploratory "as-treated" analyses suggest improved mortality and CHD risk in participants using pravastatin, and decreased CHD events associated with achieved reduction in total cholesterol. Potential benefit from statin therapy may depend on degree of reduction achieved in total and LDL-cholesterol and adherence to therapy.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) significantly increases morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD). Treatments for patients with T2DM have the potential to reduce cardiovascular (CV) risk. This review focuses on the potential of a new class of antidiabetic agents, the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, to reduce CV risk in patients with T2DM through reductions in hyperglycemia, blood pressure (BP), and body weight. The results of clinical trials of SGLT2 inhibitors are summarized and discussed., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter trial assigned 32,804 participants aged 55 years and older with hypertension and ≥ 1 other coronary heart disease risk factors to receive chlorthalidone (n=15,002), amlodipine (n=8898), or lisinopril (n=8904) for 4 to 8 years, when double-blinded therapy was discontinued. Passive surveillance continued for a total follow-up of 8 to 13 years using national administrative databases to ascertain deaths and hospitalizations. During the post-trial period, fatal outcomes and nonfatal outcomes were available for 98% and 65% of participants, respectively, due to lack of access to administrative databases for the remainder. This paper assesses whether mortality and morbidity differences persisted or new differences developed during the extended follow-up. Primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality and secondary outcomes were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and end-stage renal disease. For the post-trial period, data are not available on medications or blood pressure levels. No significant differences (P<.05) appeared in cardiovascular mortality for amlodipine (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.06) or lisinopril (HR, 0.97; CI, 0.90-1.03), each compared with chlorthalidone. The only significant differences in secondary outcomes were for heart failure, which was higher with amlodipine (HR, 1.12; CI, 1.02-1.22), and stroke mortality, which was higher with lisinopril (HR, 1.20; CI, 1.01-1.41), each compared with chlorthalidone. Similar to the previously reported in-trial result, there was a significant treatment-by-race interaction for cardiovascular disease for lisinopril vs chlorthalidone. Black participants had higher risk than non-black participants taking lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone. After accounting for multiple comparisons, none of these results were significant. These findings suggest that neither calcium channel blockers nor angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are superior to diuretics for the long-term prevention of major cardiovascular complications of hypertension., (© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The large subunit of the eukaryotic ribosome possesses a long and protruding stalk formed by the ribosomal P proteins. This structure is involved in the translation step of protein synthesis through interaction with the elongation factor 2 (EF-2). The Trypanosoma cruzi stalk complex is composed of four proteins of about 11 kDa, TcP1α, TcP1β, TcP2α, TcP2β and a fifth TcP0 of about 34 kDa. In a previous work, a yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) protein-protein interaction map of T. cruzi ribosomal P proteins was generated. In order to gain new insight into the assembly of the stalk, a complete interaction map was generated by surface plasmon resonance (SPR) and the kinetics of each interaction was calculated. All previously detected interactions were confirmed and new interacting pairs were found, such as TcP1β-TcP2α and TcP1β-TcP2β. Moreover P2 but not P1 proteins were able to homo-oligomerize. In addition, the region comprising amino acids 210-270 on TcP0 was identified as the region interacting with P1/P2 proteins, using Y2H and SPR. The interaction domains on TcP2β were also mapped by SPR identifying two distinct regions. The assembly order of the pentameric complex was assessed by SPR showing the existence of a hierarchy in the association of the different P proteins forming the stalk. Finally, the TcEF-2 gene was identified, cloned, expressed and refolded. Using SPR analysis we showed that TcEF-2 bound with similar affinity to the four P1/P2 ribosomal P proteins of T. cruzi but with reduced affinity to TcP0., (Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

The goal of antihypertensive therapy is to abolish the risks associated with blood pressure (BP) elevation without adversely affecting quality of life. Drug selection is based on efficacy in lowering BP and in reducing cardiovascular (CV) end points, including stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Although the choice of initial drug therapy exerts some effect on long-term outcomes, it is evident that BP reduction per se is the primary determinant of CV risk reduction. Available data suggest that at least 75% of patients will require combination therapy to achieve contemporary BP targets, and increasing emphasis is being placed on the practical tasks involved in consistently achieving and maintaining goal BP in clinical practice. It is within this context that the American Society of Hypertension presents this Position Paper on Combination Therapy for Hypertension. It will address the scientific basis of combination therapy, present the pharmacologic rationale for choosing specific drug combinations, and review patient selection criteria for initial and secondary use. The advantages and disadvantages of single-pill (fixed) drug combinations and the implications of recent clinical trials involving specific combination strategies will also be discussed., (© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

There has been much discussion and study about the role of continuing medical education (CME) in improving patient care. The authors describe the processes used to develop and implement a series of live, half-day, highly interactive CME events that addressed knowledge, competency, and performance gaps in hypertension diagnosis and management in the primary care community and successfully changed physician behavior toward improved patient outcomes. Participation in an intensive, highly interactive, case-based didactic program was significantly associated with an increase in clinician knowledge and competency in diagnosing and managing patients with hypertension. Participation was also associated with a high likelihood for practice change and making guideline-driven and evidence-based decisions to positively impact patient care. A greater portion of participants were able to identify the appropriate blood pressure goal and select the most appropriate pharmacotherapy regimen for specific patients. Quality of education index indicated that participants were 52% more likely to practice guideline-driven and evidence-based medicine than those who did not participate in the CME activity., (© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Although beta-blockers have been endorsed by guidelines committees for the treatment of patients with hypertension, particularly those with significant CVD and high CVD risk, there are concerns about conventional beta-blockers related to poorer clinical outcomes compared with other classes of antihypertensive agents, as well as deleterious effects on quality of life and lipid and carbohydrate metabolism. beta-Blockers comprise a heterogeneous group of antihypertensive agents, including nonselective agents, cardioselective, nonvasodilating agents, and vasodilating agents that either combine beta-nonselectivity with alpha-blockade or possess cardioselectivity without alpha-blockade. The pharmacologic, mechanistic, and hemodynamic differences between conventional, nonvasodilating beta-blockers and vasodilating beta-blockers are discussed in this review, with a focus on the cardioselective vasodilating beta-blocker nebivolol. These differences may have important clinical implications, particularly in the treatment of complicated hypertension, such as that associated with patients with diabetes or the cardiometabolic syndrome, elderly patients, and African American patients, suggesting that mechanism of action may be an important consideration when choosing a beta-blocker., (Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Beta-blockers have played a key role in the management of hypertension-related cardiovascular disease for decades, and continue to be recommended as a mainstay of therapy in national guidelines statements. Recent data have shown less optimal reductions in total mortality, CVD mortality, and CVD events with beta-blockers compared with renin-angiotensin system-blocking agents or calcium channel blockers. The beta-blocker class, however, spans a wide range of agents, and the growing concern about the risk-benefit profile of beta-blockers should not be generalized to later-generation vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol and nebivolol. A growing database from hypertension studies confirms the clinical efficacy and safety of vasodilating beta-blockers, and outcome studies indicate that these agents can play an important role in global CVD reduction in patients with hypertensive or ischemic heart failure., (Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.), (2010 Massachusetts Medical Society)