Search

Equity and effectiveness of the medication therapy management (MTM) program in Medicare has been a policy focus since its inception. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Medicare MTM program in improving medication utilization quality across racial and ethnic groups.This study analyzed 2017 Medicare data linked to the Area Health Recourses File. A propensity score was used to match MTM enrollees and nonenrollees, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between the 2 groups was calculated. Effectiveness was measured as the proportion of appropriate medication utilization based on medication utilization measures developed by Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Net monetary benefits were compared across racial and ethnic groups at various societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. The 95% confidence intervals were obtained by nonparametric bootstrapping.MTM dominated non-MTM among the total sample (N = 699 992), as MTM enrollees had lower healthcare costs ($31 135.89 vs $32 696.69) and higher proportions of appropriate medication utilization (87.47% vs 85.31%) than nonenrollees. MTM enrollees had both lower medication costs ($10 681.21 vs $11 003.08) and medical costs ($20 454.68 vs $21 693.61) compared with nonenrollees. The cost-effectiveness of MTM was higher among Black patients than White patients across the WTP thresholds. For instance, at a WTP of $3006 per percentage point increase in effectiveness, the net monetary benefit for Black patients was greater than White patients by $2334.57 (95% confidence interval $1606.53-$3028.85).MTM is cost-effective in improving medication utilization quality among Medicare beneficiaries and can potentially reduce disparities between Black and White patients. Expansion of the current MTM program could maximize these benefits.

Background: The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) demonstrated reductions in major cardiovascular disease events and mortality with an intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal intervention. However, a detailed description of the blood pressure intervention, antihypertensive medication usage, blood pressure levels, and rates and predictors of blood pressure control has not been reported previously. Methods: Hypertensive participants (n=9361) 50 years and older with elevated cardiovascular disease risk were randomized 1:1 to SBP goal Results: Baseline blood pressure (median±interquartile range) was 138±19/78±16 mm Hg. For intensive group participants, percent at goal rose from 8.9% at baseline to 52.4% at 6 months and average antihypertensive medications rose from 2.2 to 2.7; SBP was Conclusions: These results may inform and help replicate the benefits of SPRINT in clinical practice. Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Communication of the benefits and harms of blood pressure lowering strategy is crucial for shared decision-making.To quantify the effect of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure lowering in terms of the number of event-free days DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial PARTICIPANTS: A total of 9361 adults 50 years or older without diabetes or stroke who had a systolic blood pressure of 130-180 mmHg and elevated cardiovascular risk INTERVENTIONS: Intensive (systolic blood pressure goal120 mmHg) versus standard blood pressure lowering (140 mmHg) MAIN MEASURES: Days free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), serious adverse events (SAE), and monitored adverse events (hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, electrolyte abnormalities, injurious falls, or acute kidney injury) over a median follow-up of 3.33 years KEY RESULTS: The intensive treatment group gained 14.7 more MACE-free days over 4 years (difference, 14.7 [95% confidence interval: 5.1, 24.4] days) than the standard treatment group. The benefit of the intensive treatment varied by cognitive function (normal: difference, 40.7 [13.0, 68.4] days; moderate-to-severe impairment: difference, -15.0 [-56.5, 26.4] days; p-for-interaction=0.009) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -22.7 [-51.5, 6.1] days; poor: difference, 156.1 [31.1, 281.2] days; p-for-interaction=0.001). The mean overall SAE-free days were not significantly different between the treatments (difference, -14.8 [-35.3, 5.7] days). However, the intensive treatment group had 28.5 fewer monitored adverse event-free days than the standard treatment group (difference, -28.5 [-40.3, -16.7] days), with significant variations by frailty status (non-frail: difference, 38.8 [8.4, 69.2] days; frail: difference, -15.5 [-46.6, 15.7] days) and self-rated health (excellent: difference, -12.9 [-45.5, 19.7] days; poor: difference, 180.6 [72.9, 288.4] days; p-for-interaction0.001).Over 4 years, intensive systolic blood pressure lowering provides, on average, 14.7 more MACE-free days than standard treatment, without any difference in SAE-free days. Whether this time-based effect summary improves shared decision-making remains to be elucidated.ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT01206062.

To change blood pressure treatment, clinicians can modify medication count or dose. However, existing studies have measured count modification, which may miss clinically important dose change in the absence of count change. This research demonstrates how dose modification captures more information about management than medication count alone.Retrospective cohort study.We included patients 65 years and older with established primary care at the Veterans Health Administration (July 2011-June 2013). We captured medication count and standardized dose change over 90 to 120 days using a validated pharmacy fill algorithm. We determined frequency of dose change without count change (and vice versa), no change in either, change in same direction ("concordant"), and change in opposite direction ("discordant"). We compared change according to systolic blood pressure (SBP) and compared concordance using a minimum threshold definition of dose change of at least 50% (instead of any change) of baseline dose modification.Among 440,801 patients, 64.2% had dose change; 22.0%, count change; 35.6%, no change in either; 42.4%, dose change without count modification; and 0.2%, count change without dose modification. Discordance occurred in 2.1% of observations. Using the minimum threshold definition of change, 68.7% had no change in either dose or count. Treatment was more frequently changed at SBP greater than 140 mm Hg.Measuring change in antihypertensive treatment using medication count frequently missed an isolated dose change in treatment modification and less often misclassified regimen modifications where there was no modification in total dose. In future research, measuring dose modification using our new algorithm would capture change in hypertension treatment intensity more precisely than current methods.

Objectives Racial/ethnic disparities have been found in prior literature examining enrolment in Medicare medication therapy management programs. However, those studies were based on various eligibility scenarios because enrolment data were unavailable. This study tested for potential disparities in enrolment using actual MTM enrolment data. Methods Medicare Parts A&B claims, Medication Therapy Management Data Files, and the Area Health Resources File from 2013 to 2014 and 2016 to 2017 were analysed in this retrospective analysis. An adjusted logistic regression compared odds of enrolment between racial/ethnic minorities and non-Hispanic Whites (Whites) in the total sample and subpopulations with diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidaemia. Trends in disparities were analysed by including interaction terms in regressions between dummy variables for race/ethnic minority groups and period 2016-2017. Key Findings Disparities in MTM enrolment were detected between Blacks and Whites with diabetes in 2013-2014 (Odds Ratio = 0.78, 95% Confidence Interval = 0.75-0.81). This disparity improved from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017 for Blacks (Odds Ratio=1.08, 95% Confidence Interval = 1.04-1.11) but persisted in 2016-2017 (Odds Ratio = 0.84, 95% Confidence Interval = 0.81-0.87). A disparity was identified between Blacks and Whites with hypertension in 2013-2014 (Odds Ratio = 0.92, 95% Confidence Interval = 0.89-0.95) but not in 2016-2017. Enrolment for all groups, however, declined between periods. For example, in the total sample, the odds of enrolment declined from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017 by 22% (Odds Ratio=0.78, 95% Confidence Interval=0.75-0.81). Conclusions Racial disparities in MTM enrolment were found between Blacks and Whites among Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes in both periods and among individuals with hypertension in 2013-2014. As overall enrolment fell between periods, concerns about program enrolment remain.

Background There are 2 approaches to intensifying antihypertensive treatment when target blood pressure is not reached, adding a new medication and maximizing dose. Which strategy is better is unknown. Objective To assess the frequency of intensification by adding a new medication versus maximizing dose, as well as the association of each method with intensification sustainability and follow-up systolic blood pressure (SBP). Design Large-scale, population-based, retrospective cohort study. Observational data were used to emulate a target trial with 2 groups, new medication and maximizing dose, who underwent intensification of their drug regimen. Setting Veterans Health Administration (2011 to 2013). Patients Veterans aged 65 years or older with hypertension, an SBP of 130 mm Hg or higher, and at least 1 antihypertensive medication at less than the maximum dose. Measurements The following 2 intensification approaches were emulated: adding a new medication, defined as a total dose increase with new medication, and maximizing dose, defined as a total dose increase without new medication. Inverse probability weighting was used to assess the observational effectiveness of the intensification approach on sustainability of intensified treatment and follow-up SBP at 3 and 12 months. Results Among 178 562 patients, 45 575 (25.5%) had intensification by adding a new medication and 132 987 (74.5%) by maximizing dose. Compared with maximizing dose, adding a new medication was associated with less intensification sustainability (average treatment effect, -15.2% [95% CI, -15.7% to -14.6%] at 3 months and -15.1% [CI, -15.6% to -14.5%] at 12 months) but a slightly larger reduction in mean SBP (-0.8 mm Hg [CI, -1.2 to -0.4 mm Hg] at 3 months and -1.1 mm Hg [CI, -1.6 to -0.6 mm Hg] at 12 months). Limitation Observational data; largely male population. Conclusion Adding a new antihypertensive medication was less frequent and was associated with less intensification sustainability but slightly larger reductions in SBP. Trials would provide the most definitive support for our findings. Primary funding source National Institute on Aging and Veterans Health Administration.

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results have influenced clinical practice but have also generated discussion regarding the validity, generalizability and importance of the findings. Following the SPRINT primary results manuscript in 2015, additional results and analyses of the data have addressed these concerns. The primary objective of this manuscript is to respond to key questions that have been raised. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated the effectiveness of treating SBP to levels well below those previously recommended in US and European BP guidelines.(1) The SPRINT results have informed guideline committees in recommending treatment to SBP targets lower than previously advised.(2–4) However, some of the SPRINT findings have generated discussion, and questions have been raised regarding their application in clinical practice. These include generalizability, validity of the outcome measures (especially heart failure), the methods used for event ascertainment, the effect size of the intervention benefit, and safety and tolerability of the

Background: Describing the antihypertensive medication regimens used in the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) would contextualize the standard and intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) interventions and may inform future implementation efforts to achieve population-wide intensive SBP goals. Methods: We included SPRINT participants with complete medication data at the prerandomization and 12-month visits. Regimens were categorized by antihypertensive medication class. Analyses were stratified by treatment group (standard goal SBP Results: Among 7860 participants (83.7% of 9361 randomized), the median number of classes used at the prerandomization visit was 2.0 and 2.0 in the standard and intensive groups ( P =0.559). At 12-months, the median number of classes used was 3.0 and 2.0 in the intensive and standard groups ( P Conclusions: SPRINT investigators favored combining ACEs or ARBs, thiazide diuretics, and calcium channel blockers to target SBP Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide for preventing major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension is unclear.In a pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned adults 65 years of age or older who were patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs health system and had been receiving hydrochlorothiazide at a daily dose of 25 or 50 mg to continue therapy with hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to chlorthalidone at a daily dose of 12.5 or 25 mg. The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure resulting in hospitalization, urgent coronary revascularization for unstable angina, and non-cancer-related death. Safety was also assessed.A total of 13,523 patients underwent randomization. The mean age was 72 years. At baseline, hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 25 mg per day had been prescribed in 12,781 patients (94.5%). The mean baseline systolic blood pressure in each group was 139 mm Hg. At a median follow-up of 2.4 years, there was little difference in the occurrence of primary-outcome events between the chlorthalidone group (702 patients [10.4%]) and the hydrochlorothiazide group (675 patients [10.0%]) (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.16; P = 0.45). There were no between-group differences in the occurrence of any of the components of the primary outcome. The incidence of hypokalemia was higher in the chlorthalidone group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group (6.0% vs. 4.4%, P0.001).In this large pragmatic trial of thiazide diuretics at doses commonly used in clinical practice, patients who received chlorthalidone did not have a lower occurrence of major cardiovascular outcome events or non-cancer-related deaths than patients who received hydrochlorothiazide. (Funded by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02185417.).

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE. While low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and mortality, the clinical significance of variability in eGFR over time is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the association between variability in eGFR and the risk of CVD events and all-cause mortality. STUDY DESIGN. Longitudinal analysis of clinical trial participants. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS. 7,520 Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) participants aged ≥ 50 year with 1 or more CVD risk factors. PREDICTORS. eGFR variability, estimated by the coefficients of variation of eGFR measurements at the 6, 12, and 18-month study visits. OUTCOMES. SPRINT primary CVD composite outcome (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, or CVD death) and all-cause mortality from month 18 to end of follow-up. ANALYTICAL APPROACH. Cox models evaluated associations between eGFR variability and CVD outcomes and all-cause mortality. Models were adjusted for demographics, randomization arm, CVD risk factors, albuminuria and month 18 eGFR. RESULTS. Mean age was 68±9 years, 65% were men, and 58% were white. The mean eGFR was 73±21 ml/min/1.73m(2) at 6 months. There were 370 CVD events and 154 deaths during a median follow-up of 2.4 years. Greater eGFR variability was associated with higher risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) per standard deviation (SD) greater variability, 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.45) but not CVD events (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16) after adjusting for albuminuria at baseline, eGFR at month 18, and other CVD risk factors. Associations were similar when stratified by treatment arm and baseline CKD status, when accounting for concurrent systolic BP changes, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and diuretic medications during follow-up. LIMITATIONS. Persons with diabetes and proteinuria > 1 g/day were excluded. CONCLUSIONS. In trial participants at high risk for CVD with hypertension, greater eGFR variability was independently associated with all-cause mortality but not CVD events.

Background: In a recent individual level meta-analysis, intensive versus standard blood pressure (BP) treatment reduced participants’ risk of orthostatic hypotension (OH). Whether OH modified the relationship between intensive treatment and risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or death is unknown. Methods: We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis, updating a previous systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases through May 13, 2022, which included randomized trials of BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) on CVD or death. CVD events were adjudicated and included coronary heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure. OH was defined as a drop in SBP ≥20 mmHg and/or DBP ≥10 mmHg after changing positions from sitting to standing. Ultimately, 8 trials were identified with OH and outcomes data. Effects were examined overall and by trial type (BP goal or active agent), using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age and sex. Results: There were 27,974 participants followed for median of 4 years (mean age 69.5±10.7 years; 48.5% female; 8.6% with OH). Baseline OH was associated with a higher risk of CVD or death (HR 1.24; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.39). More intensive BP treatment or active therapy lowered risk of CVD or death among those without OH at baseline (HR 0.82; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.88) and with OH at baseline (HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.98). Effects did not differ by baseline OH ( P -interaction 0.78) ( Table ). Conclusion: While baseline OH was associated with CVD or death, it did not increase the risk of CVD or death from intensive treatment. OH prior to the initiation of intensive therapy should not be viewed as a reason to avoid BP treatment.

Background Intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment prevents cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in patients with high CVD risk on average, though benefits likely vary among patients. Objectives The aim of this study was to predict the magnitude of benefit (reduced CVD and all-cause mortality risk) along with adverse event (AE) risk from intensive versus standard SBP treatment. Methods This was a secondary analysis of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Separate benefit outcomes were the first occurrence of: 1) a CVD composite of acute myocardial infarction or other acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, or CVD death; and 2) all-cause mortality. Treatment-related AEs of interest included hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, electrolyte abnormalities, injurious falls, and acute kidney injury. Modified elastic net Cox regression was used to predict absolute risk for each outcome and absolute risk differences on the basis of 36 baseline variables available at the point of care with intensive versus standard treatment. Results Among 8,828 SPRINT participants (mean age 67.9 years, 35% women), 600 CVD composite events, 363 all-cause deaths, and 481 treatment-related AEs occurred over a median follow-up period of 3.26 years. Individual participant risks were predicted for the CVD composite (C index = 0.71), all-cause mortality (C index = 0.75), and treatment-related AEs (C index = 0.69). Higher baseline CVD risk was associated with greater benefit (i.e., larger absolute CVD risk reduction). Predicted CVD benefit and predicted increased treatment-related AE risk were correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient = −0.72), and 95% of participants who fell into the highest tertile of predicted benefit also had high or moderate predicted increases in treatment-related AE risk. Few were predicted as high benefit with low AE risk (1.8%) or low benefit with high AE risk (1.5%). Similar results were obtained for all-cause mortality. Conclusions SPRINT participants with higher baseline predicted CVD risk gained greater absolute benefit from intensive treatment. Participants with high predicted benefit were also most likely to experience treatment-related AEs, but AEs were generally mild and transient. Patients should be prioritized for intensive SBP treatment on the basis of higher predicted benefit. (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial [SPRINT]; NCT01206062 )

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has had significant impact on clinical care and traditional clinical trial operations, but it is unclear whether these impacts persist in pragmatic trials with a centralized study design. The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) is a Point-of Care pragmatic trial testing the hypothesis that chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide at the prevention of major cardiovascular (CV) events and non-cancer death. DCP relies on telephone consent, data collection from the electronic health record and Medicare, forgoes study visits, and limits provider time beyond usual care. DCP paused recruitment on VA directive in response to COVID-19 from 3/17/2020 until 7/1/2020. We assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the centralized recruitment, patient follow-up, data collection, and outcome ascertainment performed in the DCP. Methods To assess clinical activity level and trial metrics, we compared data from two 8-month time periods: Pre-Pandemic (July 2019 – February 2020) and Mid-Pandemic (July 2020 – February 2021). Consent and randomization rates, study medication adherence, blood pressure (BP) and electrolyte follow-up rates, VA records of CV events, all-cause hospitalization, and death rates were compared for these two periods. Results Providers agreed to participate at a lower rate mid-pandemic (71%) than pre-pandemic (65%), but more patients were contacted (5,363 vs. 7,622) and consented (3,048 vs. 3,718) mid-pandemic. Patients refilled medications and remained on their randomized diuretic at the same frequency (90%) in both periods. Overall, rates of BP, electrolyte measurements, and hospitalizations decreased mid-pandemic while deaths increased. Conclusions While recruitment, enrollment, and adherence did not suffer during the pandemic, documented blood pressure checks and laboratory evaluations decreased, likely due to fewer in-person visits during the pandemic. All-cause VA hospitalizations decreased, despite a considerable number of COVID-related hospitalizations. While this suggests some changes in clinical care during the pandemic, the overall impact on DCP’s ability to operate mostly unimpacted during a global pandemic is another important strength of Point of Care clinical trials. Clinical Trial Registration NCT02185417 Registered 9 July 9 2014 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02185417

Fine particulate matter 2.5 ) air pollution is implicated in global mortality, especially from cardiovascular causes. A large body of evidence suggests a link between PM 2.5 and elevation in blood pressure (BP), with the latter implicated as a potential mediator of cardiovascular events. We sought to determine if the outcomes of intensive BP lowering (systolic BP 2.5 exposure in the SPRINT (Systolic BP Intervention Trial). We linked annual PM 2.5 exposure estimates derived from an integrated model to subjects participating in SPRINT. We evaluated the effect of intensive BP lowering by PM 2.5 exposure on the primary outcome in SPRINT using cox-proportional hazard models. A total of 9286 participants were linked to PM 2.5 levels (mean age 68±9 years). Intensive BP-lowering decreased risk of the primary outcome more among patients exposed to higher PM 2.5 ( P interaction =0.047). The estimate for lowering of primary outcome was numerically lower in the highest than in the lower quintiles. The benefits of intensive BP-lowering were larger among patients chronically exposed to PM 2.5 levels above US National Ambient Air Quality Standards of 12 µg/m 3 (hazard ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.29–0.74]) compared with those living in cleaner locations (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.68–0.97]), P interaction =0.037. This exploratory nonprespecified post hoc analysis of SPRINT suggests that the benefits of intensive BP lowering on the primary outcome was greater in patients exposed to higher PM 2.5 , suggesting that the magnitude of benefit may depend upon the magnitude of antecedent PM 2.5 exposure.

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease for patients not receiving dialysis represents an update to the KDIGO 2012 guideline on this topic. Development of this guideline update followed a rigorous process of evidence review and appraisal. Guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence. The strength of recommendations is based on the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The scope includes topics covered in the original guideline, such as optimal blood pressure targets, lifestyle interventions, antihypertensive medications, and specific management in kidney transplant recipients and children. Some aspects of general and cardiovascular health, such as lipid and smoking management, are excluded. This guideline also introduces a chapter dedicated to proper blood pressure measurement since all large randomized trials targeting blood pressure with pivotal outcomes used standardized preparation and measurement protocols adhered to by patients and clinicians. Based on previous and new evidence, in particular the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results, we propose a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg using standardized office reading for most people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis, the exception being children and kidney transplant recipients. The goal of this guideline is to provide clinicians and patients a useful resource with actionable recommendations supplemented with practice points. The burden of the recommendations on patients and resources, public policy implications, and limitations of the evidence are taken into consideration. Lastly, knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research are provided.

Context Dulaglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial. Its efficacy and safety in older vs younger patients have not been explicitly analyzed. Objective This work aimed to assess efficacy and safety of dulaglutide vs placebo in REWIND by age subgroups (≥ 65 and Methods A post hoc subgroup analysis of REWIND was conducted at 371 sites in 24 countries. Participants included type 2 diabetes patients aged 50 years or older with established cardiovascular (CV) disease or multiple CV risk factors, and a wide range of glycemic control. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dulaglutide 1.5 mg or placebo as an add-on to country-specific standard of care. Main outcomes measures included MACE (first occurrence of the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from CV or unknown causes). Results There were 5256 randomly assigned patients who were 65 years or older (mean = 71.0), and 4645 were younger than 65 years (mean = 60.7). Baseline characteristics were similar in randomized treatment groups. Dulaglutide treatment showed a similar reduction in the incidence (11% vs 13%) of MACE in older vs younger patients. The rate of permanent study drug discontinuation, incidence of all-cause mortality, hospitalizations for heart failure, severe hypoglycemia, severe renal or urinary events, and serious gastrointestinal events were similar between randomized treatment groups within each age subgroup. The incidence rate of serious cardiac conduction disorders was numerically higher in the dulaglutide group compared to placebo within each age subgroup but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion Dulaglutide had similar efficacy and safety in REWIND in patients65 years and older and those younger than 65 years.

Background Controversy exists as to whether the threshold for blood pressure-lowering treatment should differ between people with and without type 2 diabetes. We aimed to investigate the effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events by type 2 diabetes status, as well as by baseline levels of systolic blood pressure. Methods We conducted a one-stage individual participant-level data meta-analysis of major randomised controlled trials using the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration dataset. Trials with information on type 2 diabetes status at baseline were eligible if they compared blood pressure-lowering medications versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure-lowering medications, or an intensive versus a standard blood pressure-lowering strategy, and reported at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each group. Trials exclusively on participants with heart failure or with short-term therapies and acute myocardial infarction or other acute settings were excluded. We expressed treatment effect per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure on the risk of developing a major cardiovascular event as the primary outcome, defined as the first occurrence of fatal or non-fatal stroke or cerebrovascular disease, fatal or non-fatal ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring hospitalisation. Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) separately by type 2 diabetes status at baseline, with further stratification by baseline categories of systolic blood pressure (in 10 mm Hg increments from Findings We included data from 51 randomised clinical trials published between 1981 and 2014 involving 358 533 participants (58% men), among whom 103 325 (29%) had known type 2 diabetes at baseline. The baseline mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure of those with and without type 2 diabetes was 149/84 mm Hg (SD 19/11) and 153/88 mm Hg (SD 21/12), respectively. Over 4·2 years median follow-up (IQR 3·0–5·0), a 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure decreased the risk of major cardiovascular events in both groups, but with a weaker relative treatment effect in participants with type 2 diabetes (HR 0·94 [95% CI 0·91–0·98]) compared with those without type 2 diabetes (0·89 [0·87–0·92]; pinteraction=0·0013). However, absolute risk reductions did not differ substantially between people with and without type 2 diabetes because of the higher absolute cardiovascular risk among participants with type 2 diabetes. We found no reliable evidence for heterogeneity of treatment effects by baseline systolic blood pressure in either group. In keeping with the primary findings, analysis using stratified network meta-analysis showed no evidence that relative treatment effects differed substantially between participants with type 2 diabetes and those without for any of the drug classes investigated. Interpretation Although the relative beneficial effects of blood pressure reduction on major cardiovascular events were weaker in participants with type 2 diabetes than in those without, absolute effects were similar. The difference in relative risk reduction was not related to the baseline blood pressure or allocation to different drug classes. Therefore, the adoption of differential blood pressure thresholds, intensities of blood pressure lowering, or drug classes used in people with and without type 2 diabetes is not warranted. Funding British Heart Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Martin School.

Digital, 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., Ciencias Médicas y de la Salud

Summary Background Results from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that intensive control of systolic blood pressure significantly reduced the occurrence of mild cognitive impairment, but not probable dementia. We investigated the effects of intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure on specific cognitive functions in a preplanned substudy of participants from SPRINT. Methods SPRINT was an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial undertaken at 102 sites, including academic medical centres, Veterans Affairs medical centres, hospitals, and independent clinics, in the USA and Puerto Rico. Participants were adults aged 50 years or older with systolic blood pressure higher than 130 mm Hg, but without diabetes, history of stroke, or dementia. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) versus less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). All major classes of antihypertensive agents were included. A subgroup of randomly assigned participants including, but not limited to, participants enrolled in an MRI substudy was then selected for a concurrent substudy of cognitive function (target 2800 participants). Each individual was assessed with a screening cognitive test battery and an extended cognitive test battery at baseline and biennially during the planned 4-year follow-up. The primary outcomes for this substudy were standardised composite scores for memory (Logical Memory I and II, Modified Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure [immediate recall], and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised [delayed recall]) and processing speed (Trail Making Test and Digit Symbol Coding). SPRINT was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01206062 . Findings From Nov 23, 2010, to Dec 28, 2012, 2921 participants (mean age 68·4 years [SD 8·6], 1080 [37%] women) who had been randomly assigned in SPRINT were enrolled in the substudy (1448 received intensive treatment and 1473 received standard treatment). SPRINT was terminated early due to benefit observed in the primary outcome (composite of cardiovascular events). After a median follow-up of 4·1 years (IQR 3·7–5·8), there was no between-group difference in memory, with an annual decline in mean standardised domain score of −0·005 (95% CI −0·010 to 0·001) in the intensive treatment group and −0·001 (–0·006 to 0·005) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference −0·004, 95% CI −0·012 to 0·004; p=0·33). Mean standardised processing speed domain scores declined more in the intensive treatment group (between-group difference −0·010, 95% CI −0·017 to −0·002; p=0·02), with an annual decline of −0·025 (–0·030 to −0·019) for the intensive treatment group and −0·015 (–0·021 to 0·009) for the standard treatment group. Interpretation Intensive treatment to lower systolic blood pressure did not result in a clinically relevant difference compared with standard treatment in memory or processing speed in a subgroup of participants from SPRINT. The effect of blood pressure lowering might not be evident in specific domains of cognitive function, but instead distributed across multiple domains. Funding National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Alzheimer's Association.

BACKGROUND Patients with stage 1 systolic hypertension have increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. METHODS Using Cox models, we assess the effect of targeting an intensive SBP goal of less than 120 mmHg compared with standard SBP goal of less than 140 mmHg on the risk of CVD events in adults with stage 1 systolic hypertension with diabetes mellitus enrolled in Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure trial (ACCORD BP) (n = 1901) and without diabetes mellitus enrolled in Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) (n = 3484) that used identical SBP goal interventions. OUTCOMES In ACCORD BP, the primary composite CVD outcome was the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CVD mortality. In SPRINT, the primary composite CVD outcome was the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, or CVD mortality. RESULTS In SPRINT, targeting an intensive SBP goal significantly reduced the risk of the primary CVD outcome [hazard ratio 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.98); events 1.78 vs. 2.37%/year]. In ACCORD BP, the relationships of SBP goal with the primary CVD outcome was modified by the glycemia goal intervention (interaction P = 0.039). In the standard glycemia subgroup (A1c target 7-7.9%), intensive SBP goal significantly reduced the risk of the primary CVD outcome [hazard ratio 0.61 (0.40-0.94); events 1.63 vs. 2.56%/year]. In the intensive glycemia subgroup (A1c target

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a multidisciplinary working group of hypertension researchers on December 6 to 7, 2018, in Bethesda, MD, to share current scientific knowledge in hypertension and to identify barriers to translation of basic into clinical science/trials and implementation of clinical science into clinical care of patients with hypertension. The goals of the working group were (1) to provide an overview of recent discoveries that may be ready for testing in preclinical and clinical studies; (2) to identify gaps in knowledge that impede translation; (3) to highlight the most promising scientific areas in which to pursue translation; (4) to identify key challenges and barriers for moving basic science discoveries into translation, clinical studies, and trials; and (5) to identify roadblocks for effective dissemination and implementation of basic and clinical science in real-world settings. The working group addressed issues that were responsive to many of the objectives of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Strategic Vision. The working group identified major barriers and opportunities for translating research to improved control of hypertension. This review summarizes the discussion and recommendations of the working group.

Summary Background Cardiovascular outcome trials have suggested that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists might reduce strokes. We analysed the effect of dulaglutide on stroke within the researching cardiovascular events with a weekly incretin in diabetes (REWIND) trial. Methods REWIND was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done at 371 sites in 24 countries. Men and women (aged ≥50 years) with established or newly detected type 2 diabetes whose HbA1c was 9·5% or less (with no lower limit) on stable doses of up to two oral glucose-lowering drugs with or without basal insulin therapy were eligible if their body-mass index was at least 23 kg/m2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to weekly subcutaneous injections of either masked dulaglutide 1·5 mg or the same volume of masked placebo (containing the same excipients but without dulaglutide). Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random code with an interactive web response system with stratification by site. Participants, investigators, the trial leadership, and all other personnel were masked to treatment allocation until the trial was completed and the database was locked. During the treatment period, participants in both groups were instructed to inject study drug on the same day at around the same time, each week. Strokes were categorised as fatal or non-fatal, and as either ischaemic, haemorrhagic, or undetermined. Stroke severity was assessed using the modified Rankin scale. Participants were seen at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and then every 3 months for drug dispensing and every 6 months for detailed assessments, until 1200 confirmed primary outcomes accrued. The primary endpoint was the first occurrence of any component of the composite outcome, which comprised non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. All analyses were done according to an intention-to-treat strategy that included all randomly assigned participants, irrespective of adherence. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01394952 . Findings Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, we screened 12 133 patients, of whom 9901 with type 2 diabetes and additional cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned to either dulaglutide (n=4949) or an equal volume of placebo (n=4952). During a median follow-up of 5·4 years, cerebrovascular and other cardiovascular outcomes were ascertained and adjudicated. 158 (3·2%) of 4949 participants assigned to dulaglutide and 205 (4·1%) of 4952 participants assigned to placebo had a stroke during follow-up (hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·62–0·94; p=0·010). Dulaglutide reduced ischaemic stroke (0·75, 0·59–0·94, p=0·012) but had no effect on haemorrhagic stroke (1·05, 0·55–1·99; p=0·89). Dulaglutide also reduced the composite of non-fatal stroke or all-cause death (0·88, 0·79–0·98; p=0·017) and disabling stroke (0·74, 0·56–0·99; p=0·042). The degree of disability after stroke did not differ by treatment group. Interpretation Long-term dulaglutide use might reduce clinically relevant ischaemic stroke in people with type 2 diabetes but does not affect stroke severity. Funding Eli Lilly and Company.

The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) demonstrated reduced cardiovascular outcomes. We evaluated diabetes mellitus incidence in this randomized trial that compared intensive blood pressure strategy (systolic blood pressure 1 g/d, heart failure, dementia, or stroke. Postrandomization exclusions included participants missing blood glucose or ≥126 mg/dL (6.99 mmol/L) or on hypoglycemics. The outcome was incident diabetes mellitus: fasting blood glucose ≥126 mg/dL (6.99 mmol/L), diabetes mellitus self-report, or new use of hypoglycemics. The secondary outcome was impaired fasting glucose (100–125 mg/dL [5.55–6.94 mmol/L]) among those with normoglycemia ( Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Background/Aims: The US Department of Veterans Affairs Point of Care Clinical Trial Program conducts studies that utilize informatics infrastructure to integrate clinical trial protocols into routine care delivery. The Diuretic Comparison Project compared hydrochlorothiazide to chlorthalidone in reduction of major cardiovascular events in subjects with hypertension. Here we describe the cultural, technical, regulatory, and logistical challenges and solutions that enabled successful implementation of this large pragmatic comparative effectiveness Point of Care clinical trial. Methods: Patients were recruited from 72 Veterans Affairs Healthcare Systems using centralized processes for subject identification, obtaining informed consent, data collection, safety monitoring, site communication, and endpoint identification with minimal perturbation of the local clinical care ecosystem. Patients continued to be managed exclusively by their clinical care providers without protocol specified study visits, treatment recommendations, or data collection extraneous to routine care. Centralized study processes were operationalized through the application layer of the electronic health record via a data coordinating center staffed by clinical nurses, data scientists, and statisticians without site-based research coordinators. Study data was collected from the Veterans Affairs electronic health record supplemented by Medicare and National Death Index data. Results: The study exceeded its enrolled goal (13,523 subjects) and followed subjects for the 5-year study duration. The key determinant of program success was collaboration between researchers, regulators, clinicians, and administrative staff at the site level to customize study procedures to align with local clinical practice. This flexibility was enabled by designation of the study as minimal risk and determination that clinical care providers were not engaged in research by the Veterans Affairs Central Institutional Review Board. Cultural, regulatory, technical, and logistical problems were identified and solved through iterative collaboration between clinical and research entities. Paramount among these problems was customization of the Veterans Affairs electronic health record and data systems to accommodate study procedures. Conclusions: Leveraging clinical care for large-scale clinical trials is feasible but requires a rethinking of traditional clinical trial design (and regulation) to better meet requirements of clinical care ecosystems. Study designs must accommodate site-specific practice variation to reduce the impact on clinical care. A tradeoff thus exists between designing trial processes tailored to expedite local study implementation versus those to produce a more refined response to the research question. The availability of a uniform and flexible electronic health record in the Department of Veterans Affairs played a major role in the success of the trial. Conducting Point of Care research in other healthcare systems without such research-friendly infrastructure presents a more formidable challenge.

Background: In the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), intensive BP treatment reduced acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) events. Here, we report the effect on HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) and their subsequent outcomes. Methods: Incident ADHF was defined as hospitalization or emergency department visit, confirmed, and formally adjudicated by a blinded events committee using standardized protocols. HFpEF was defined as EF ≥45%, and HFrEF was EF Results: Among the 133 participants with incident ADHF who had EF assessment, 69 (52%) had HFpEF and 64 (48%) had HFrEF ( P value: 0.73). During average 3.3 years follow-up in those who developed incident ADHF, rates of subsequent all-cause and HF hospital readmission and mortality were high, but there were no significant differences between those who developed HFpEF versus HFrEF. Randomization to the intensive arm had no effect on subsequent mortality or readmissions after the initial ADHF event, irrespective of EF subtype. During follow-up among participants who developed HFpEF, although relatively modest number of events limited statistical power, age was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality, and Black race independently predicted all-cause and HF hospital readmission. Conclusions: In SPRINT, intensive BP reduction decreased both acute decompensated HFpEF and HFrEF events. After initial incident ADHF, rates of subsequent hospital admission and mortality were high and were similar for those who developed HFpEF or HFrEF. Randomization to the intensive arm did not alter the risks for subsequent all-cause, or HF events in either HFpEF or HFrEF. Among those who developed HFpEF, age and Black race were independent predictors of clinical outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

ImportanceThe Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that intensive blood pressure control reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, the legacy effect of intensive treatment is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term effects of randomization to intensive treatment with the incidence of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality approximately 4.5 years after the trial ended.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial, randomization began on November 8, 2010, the trial intervention ended on August 20, 2015, and trial close-out visits occurred through July 2016. Patients 50 years and older with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk but without diabetes or history of stroke were included from 102 clinic sites in the US and Puerto Rico. Analyses were conducted between October 2021 and February 2022.InterventionsRandomization to systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment group; n = 4678) vs less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment group; n = 4683).Main Outcomes and MeasuresExtended observational follow-up for mortality via the US National Death Index from 2016 through 2020. In a subset of 2944 trial participants, outpatient SBP from electronic health records during and after the trial were examined.ResultsAmong 9361 randomized participants, the mean (SD) age was 67.9 (9.4) years, and 3332 (35.6%) were women. Over a median (IQR) intervention period of 3.3 (2.9-3.9) years, intensive treatment was beneficial for both cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.89) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.01). However, at the median (IQR) total follow-up of 8.8 (8.3-9.3) years, there was no longer evidence of benefit for cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.84-1.24) or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.94-1.23). In a subgroup of participants, the estimated mean outpatient SBP among participants randomized to intensive treatment increased from 132.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 132.0-133.7) at 5 years to 140.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 137.8-143.0) at 10 years following randomization.Conclusions and RelevanceThe beneficial effect of intensive treatment on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality did not persist after the trial. Given increasing outpatient SBP levels in participants randomized to intensive treatment following the trial, these results highlight the importance of consistent long-term management of hypertension.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on traditional clinical trial operations, but it is unclear whether the impact persists in pragmatic trials with a centralized study design. The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) is a Point-of Care pragmatic trial that operates through a usual care system to compare chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide at preventing major cardiovascular (CV) events and non-cancer death. We assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the centralized recruitment, patient follow-up, data collection, and outcome ascertainment performed in the DCP. Methods: We assessed operations in two 8-month periods: Pre-COVID-19 (Jul 2019 - Feb 2020) and Mid-COVID-19 (Jul 2020 - Feb 2021). Enrollment, study medication adherence, blood pressure (BP) and electrolyte follow-up rates, VA records of CV events, all-cause hospitalization, and death rates were compared. Results: Providers agreed to participate at a lower rate, but more patients were contacted and randomized during mid-COVID-19. While BP evaluations decreased, the rates of electrolyte, major CV, and medication prescription records were comparable to the pre-COVID-19 period ( Table 1 ). Conclusions: The DCP was able to recruit and maintain critical data collection at the pre-COVID-19 levels. There were some decreases in BP evaluations, likely due to fewer in-person visits. All-cause VA hospitalizations also decreased, despite rises in COVID-related hospitalizations and death. While the impact on outcome and safety rates awaits complete data from Medicare, the DCP has demonstrated a promising centralized design that can support pragmatic trial operations during a pandemic.

Introduction: In 2012, KDIGO released a guideline on BP management in CKD not receiving dialysis. The emergence of new trials and meta-analyses coupled with wider recognition of the importance of standardized BP measurement protocols have prompted a call to update the 2012 guideline. This summary will outline the changes to the prior recommendations and highlight similarities to guidelines from ACC/AHA and ESC/ESH. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken to formally assess the following issues: 1) BP measurement; 2) lifestyle interventions; BP management in 3) patients with CKD, with and without diabetes, 4) kidney transplant recipients, and 5) children with CKD. Results: A total of 6863 citations were screened. Of these, 290 RCTs, 14 observational studies, and 35 systematic reviews were included in the evidence review. A major addition to the KDIGO 2021 guideline is a chapter devoted to BP measurement. KDIGO recommends the use of standardized office BP over routine BP. Out-of-office measurements (ABPM, HBPM) can be used to complement standardized readings. This emphasis on standardized office BP measurement is similar to recommendations from ACC/AHA and ESC/ESH. A systolic BP target of Conclusions: KDIGO has revised its guideline for BP management in CKD based on a rigorous development process and emerging new evidence underscoring the importance of standardized office BP measurement and a lower systolic BP target of

Background: There has been a lack of evidence on whether there are racial and ethnic disparities in medication nonadherence among individuals receiving comprehensive medication review (CMR), a required component of the Medicare Part D medication therapy management (MTM) services. Objectives: To explore racial/ethnic disparities in medication nonadherence among older MTM enrollees who received a CMR and to determine how much the identified disparities can be explained by observed characteristics. Methods: The retrospective study used 100% of the 2017 Medicare claims, including MTM data. Linked Area Health Resources Files provided community characteristics. Nonadherence was defined as proportion of days covered

Background Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) cause many preventable hospitalizations and admissions. Efforts have been made to raise DDI awareness and reduce DDI occurrence; for example, Medicare Part D Star Ratings, a health plan quality assessment program, included a DDI measure. Previous research reported racial and ethnic disparities in health services utilization and that racial and ethnic minorities, compared with non-Hispanic whites (whites), may be less likely to be targeted for a similar measure, a Star Ratings adherence measure for diabetes medications. Objective This study aimed to investigate whether any racial and ethnic disparities are associated with the DDI measure in Part D Star Ratings among Medicare populations with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Methods This cross-sectional study analyzed a 2017 Medicare Part D data sample, including 3,960,813 beneficiaries. Because the inclusion in the denominator of the Star Ratings DDI measure was determined by the use of a list of target medications, the likelihood of using a listed target medication was compared between racial and ethnic minorities and whites. Individuals with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were included in the analysis owing to the high prevalence of these conditions. Patient- and community-level characteristics were adjusted by logistic regression. Results Of the entire study sample, 26.2% used a target medication. Compared with whites, most racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to use a target medication. For example, among individuals with diabetes, blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and others had, respectively, 14% (odds ratio 0.86 [95% CI 0.84–0.88]), 5% (0.95 [0.93–0.98]), 12% (0.88 [0.84–0.92]), and 10% (0.90 [0.87–0.93]) lower odds compared with whites. Findings were similar among hypertension and hyperlipidemia cohorts, except that Hispanics had similar odds of use as whites. Conclusion Most racial and ethnic minorities may have lower likelihood of being targeted for the DDI measure compared with whites. Future studies should examine whether these disparities affect health outcomes and devise new DDI measures for racial and ethnic minorities.

Background The effects of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals aged 70 years and older, particularly when blood pressure is not substantially increased, is uncertain. We compared the effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events in groups of patients stratified by age and blood pressure at baseline. Methods We did a meta-analysis using individual participant-level data from randomised controlled trials of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering versus placebo or other classes of blood-pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment strategies, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each treatment group. Participants with previous history of heart failure were excluded. Data were obtained from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Triallists' Collaboration. We pooled the data and categorised participants into baseline age groups (Findings We included data from 358 707 participants from 51 randomised clinical trials. The age of participants at randomisation ranged from 21 years to 105 years (median 65 years [IQR 59–75]), with 42 960 (12·0%) participants younger than 55 years, 128 437 (35·8%) aged 55–64 years, 128 506 (35·8%) 65–74 years, 54 016 (15·1%) 75–84 years, and 4788 (1·3%) 85 years and older. The hazard ratios for the risk of major cardiovascular events per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure for each age group were 0·82 (95% CI 0·76–0·88) in individuals younger than 55 years, 0·91 (0·88–0·95) in those aged 55–64 years, 0·91 (0·88–0·95) in those aged 65–74 years, 0·91 (0·87–0·96) in those aged 75–84 years, and 0·99 (0·87–1·12) in those aged 85 years and older (adjusted pinteraction=0·050). Similar patterns of proportional risk reductions were observed for a 3 mm Hg reduction in diastolic blood pressure. Absolute risk reductions for major cardiovascular events varied by age and were larger in older groups (adjusted pinteraction=0·024). We did not find evidence for any clinically meaningful heterogeneity of relative treatment effects across different baseline blood pressure categories in any age group. Interpretation Pharmacological blood pressure reduction is effective into old age, with no evidence that relative risk reductions for prevention of major cardiovascular events vary by systolic or diastolic blood pressure levels at randomisation, down to less than 120/70 mm Hg. Pharmacological blood pressure reduction should, therefore, be considered an important treatment option regardless of age, with the removal of age-related blood-pressure thresholds from international guidelines. Funding British Heart Foundation, National Institute of Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford Martin School.

Total medication burden (antihypertensive and nonantihypertensive medications) may be associated with poor systolic blood pressure (SBP) control. We investigated the association of baseline medication burden and clinical outcomes and whether the effect of the SBP intervention varied according to baseline medication burden in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Participants were randomized to intensive or standard SBP goal (below 120 or 140 mm Hg, respectively); n=3769 participants with high baseline medication burden (≥5 medications) and n=5592 with low burden (P interaction P interaction >0.5). Medication burden had minimal association with adherence or satisfaction. High baseline medication burden was associated with worse intensive SBP control and higher rates of cardiovascular disease events and serious adverse events. The relative benefits and risks of intensive SBP goals were similar regardless of medication burden. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01206062