Literature DB >> 27357398

A Tale of 3 Trials: ACCORD, SPRINT, and SPS3. What Happened?

Lawrence R Krakoff1.   

Abstract

Within the last several years, the National Institutes of Health has supported three randomized clinical trials to determine whether lower than usually recommended goals for treatment of hypertension would have greater benefit for prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke. These were the ACCCORD, SPRINT, and Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) Trials. Together they enrolled 17,114 participants. Results for all three have been reported. The trials differ from each other in their inclusion criteria, target blood pressures for the lower goal (intensive treatment), but are similar in many respects. The results with regard to their primary outcome were different: not significant for ACCORD and SPS3, but definitely significant for SPRINT. Subgroup analysis revealed differences and similarities. When viewed together and with recent large observational studies, they support a conclusion that a systolic pressure in the range of 125-135 mm Hg range is likely to be optimal on treatment for most hypertensive patients. © American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2016. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  blood pressure; clinical trials; diabetes; hypertension; intensive treatment; low goals; outcomes; stroke.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27357398     DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpw065

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hypertens        ISSN: 0895-7061            Impact factor:   2.689


  2 in total

1.  Heart failure and the discrepancy between trials of intensive blood pressure management: an analysis of individual patient data.

Authors:  Rahul Aggarwal; Haares Mirzan; Nicholas Chiu; Jackson Steinkamp
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  Systolic Blood Pressure Response in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) and ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes): A Possible Explanation for Discordant Trial Results.

Authors:  Chenxi Huang; Sanket S Dhruva; Andreas C Coppi; Frederick Warner; Shu-Xia Li; Haiqun Lin; Khurram Nasir; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 5.501

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.