Seth A Berkowitz1, Jeremy B Sussman2, Daniel E Jonas3, Sanjay Basu4. 1. Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Electronic address: seth_berkowitz@med.unc.edu. 2. Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Center for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Center for Population Health Sciences, Departments of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California; Center for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy over blood pressure (BP) treatment targets for individuals with diabetes is in part due to conflicting perspectives about generalizability of available trial data. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to estimate how results from the largest clinical trial of intensive BP treatment among adults with diabetes would generalize to the U.S. METHODS: The authors used transportability methods to reweight individual patient data from the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) BP trial (N = 4,507) of intensive (goal systolic BP <120 mm Hg) versus standard (goal systolic BP <140 mm Hg) treatment to better represent the demographic and clinical risk factors of the U.S. population of adults with diabetes (data from NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] 2005 to 2014, n = 1,943). The primary outcome was the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Analysis used weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models with robust standard errors. RESULTS: The ACCORD BP sample had less racial/ethnic diversity and more elevated cardiovascular risk factors than the NHANES participants. Weighted results significantly favored intensive BP treatment, unlike unweighted results (hazard ratio for primary outcome in intensive versus standard treatment in weighted analyses: 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.91; in unweighted analyses: hazard ratio: 0.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.07). Over 5 years, the weighted results estimate a number needed to treat of 34, and number needed to harm of 55. CONCLUSIONS: After reweighting to better reflect the U.S. adult population with diabetes, intensive BP therapy was associated with significantly lower risk for cardiovascular events. However, data were limited among racial/ethnic minorities and those with lower cardiovascular risk.
BACKGROUND: Controversy over blood pressure (BP) treatment targets for individuals with diabetes is in part due to conflicting perspectives about generalizability of available trial data. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to estimate how results from the largest clinical trial of intensive BP treatment among adults with diabetes would generalize to the U.S. METHODS: The authors used transportability methods to reweight individual patient data from the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) BP trial (N = 4,507) of intensive (goal systolic BP <120 mm Hg) versus standard (goal systolic BP <140 mm Hg) treatment to better represent the demographic and clinical risk factors of the U.S. population of adults with diabetes (data from NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] 2005 to 2014, n = 1,943). The primary outcome was the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Analysis used weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models with robust standard errors. RESULTS: The ACCORD BP sample had less racial/ethnic diversity and more elevated cardiovascular risk factors than the NHANES participants. Weighted results significantly favored intensive BP treatment, unlike unweighted results (hazard ratio for primary outcome in intensive versus standard treatment in weighted analyses: 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.91; in unweighted analyses: hazard ratio: 0.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.07). Over 5 years, the weighted results estimate a number needed to treat of 34, and number needed to harm of 55. CONCLUSIONS: After reweighting to better reflect the U.S. adult population with diabetes, intensive BP therapy was associated with significantly lower risk for cardiovascular events. However, data were limited among racial/ethnic minorities and those with lower cardiovascular risk.
Authors: David C Goff; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Glen Bennett; Sean Coady; Ralph B D'Agostino; Raymond Gibbons; Philip Greenland; Daniel T Lackland; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Jennifer G Robinson; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Paul Sorlie; Neil J Stone; Peter W F Wilson; Harmon S Jordan; Lev Nevo; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Daniel Westreich; Jessie K Edwards; Catherine R Lesko; Elizabeth Stuart; Stephen R Cole Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-10-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Leo F Buckley; Dave L Dixon; George F Wohlford; Dayanjan S Wijesinghe; William L Baker; Benjamin W Van Tassell Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Paul K Whelton; Robert M Carey; Wilbert S Aronow; Donald E Casey; Karen J Collins; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Sondra M DePalma; Samuel Gidding; Kenneth A Jamerson; Daniel W Jones; Eric J MacLaughlin; Paul Muntner; Bruce Ovbiagele; Sidney C Smith; Crystal C Spencer; Randall S Stafford; Sandra J Taler; Randal J Thomas; Kim A Williams; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Craig J Currie; John R Peters; Aodán Tynan; Marc Evans; Robert J Heine; Oswaldo L Bracco; Tony Zagar; Chris D Poole Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: William C Cushman; Gregory W Evans; Robert P Byington; David C Goff; Richard H Grimm; Jeffrey A Cutler; Denise G Simons-Morton; Jan N Basile; Marshall A Corson; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Lois Katz; Kevin A Peterson; William T Friedewald; John B Buse; J Thomas Bigger; Hertzel C Gerstein; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Wenhui Zhao; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Ronald Horswell; Yujie Wang; Jolene Johnson; Gang Hu Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Taavi Tillmann; Julien Vaucher; Aysu Okbay; Hynek Pikhart; Anne Peasey; Ruzena Kubinova; Andrzej Pajak; Abdonas Tamosiunas; Sofia Malyutina; Fernando Pires Hartwig; Krista Fischer; Giovanni Veronesi; Tom Palmer; Jack Bowden; George Davey Smith; Martin Bobak; Michael V Holmes Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-08-30
Authors: Neel M Butala; Eric Secemsky; Dhruv S Kazi; Yang Song; Jordan B Strom; Kamil F Faridi; J Matthew Brennan; Sammy Elmariah; Changyu Shen; Robert W Yeh Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 11.075