Importance: High blood pressure (BP) is a leading contributor to premature mortality worldwide. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated a 27% reduction in all-cause death with intensive (vs standard) BP control. However, traditional reporting of survival benefits is not readily interpretable outside medical communities. Objective: To estimate residual life span and potential survival gains with intensive compared with standard BP control in the SPRINT trial using validated nonparametric age-based methods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of data from an open-label randomized clinical trial included data from 102 enrolling clinical sites in the United States. Adults who were 50 years or older, were at high cardiovascular risk but without diabetes, and had a screening systolic BP between 130 and 180 mm Hg were enrolled between November 2010 and March 2013. Data analysis occurred from May 2019 to December 2019. Interventions: A 1:1 randomization to intensive (target, <120 mm Hg) or standard (target, <140 mm Hg) systolic BP targets. Main Outcomes and Measures: We calculated age-based estimates of projected survival (at a given age) using baseline age rather than time from randomization as the time axis. In each treatment arm at every year of age, residual life span was estimated using the area under the survival curve, up to a maximum of 95 years. Differences in areas under the survival curves reflect the estimated treatment benefits on projected survival. Results: A total of 9361 adults were enrolled (mean [SD] age at randomization, 68 [9] years; 6029 [64.4%] were men; 5399 [57.7%] were non-Hispanic white individuals). Mean survival benefits with intensive vs standard BP control ranged from 6 months to up to 3 years. At age 50 years, the estimated residual survival was 37.3 years with intensive treatment and 34.4 years with standard treatment (difference, 2.9 years [95% CI, 0.9-5.0 years]; P = .008). At age 65 years, residual survival was 24.5 years with intensive treatment and 23.3 years with standard treatment (difference, 1.1 years [95% CI, 0.1-2.1 years]; P = .03). Absolute survival gains with intensive vs standard BP control decreased with age, but the relative benefits were consistent (4% to 9%). Conclusions and Relevance: Intensive BP control improves projected survival by 6 months to 3 years among middle-aged and older adults at high cardiovascular risk but without diabetes mellitus. These post hoc actuarial analyses from SPRINT support the survival benefits of intensive BP control, especially among middle-aged adults at risk. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.
Importance: High blood pressure (BP) is a leading contributor to premature mortality worldwide. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated a 27% reduction in all-cause death with intensive (vs standard) BP control. However, traditional reporting of survival benefits is not readily interpretable outside medical communities. Objective: To estimate residual life span and potential survival gains with intensive compared with standard BP control in the SPRINT trial using validated nonparametric age-based methods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of data from an open-label randomized clinical trial included data from 102 enrolling clinical sites in the United States. Adults who were 50 years or older, were at high cardiovascular risk but without diabetes, and had a screening systolic BP between 130 and 180 mm Hg were enrolled between November 2010 and March 2013. Data analysis occurred from May 2019 to December 2019. Interventions: A 1:1 randomization to intensive (target, <120 mm Hg) or standard (target, <140 mm Hg) systolic BP targets. Main Outcomes and Measures: We calculated age-based estimates of projected survival (at a given age) using baseline age rather than time from randomization as the time axis. In each treatment arm at every year of age, residual life span was estimated using the area under the survival curve, up to a maximum of 95 years. Differences in areas under the survival curves reflect the estimated treatment benefits on projected survival. Results: A total of 9361 adults were enrolled (mean [SD] age at randomization, 68 [9] years; 6029 [64.4%] were men; 5399 [57.7%] were non-Hispanic white individuals). Mean survival benefits with intensive vs standard BP control ranged from 6 months to up to 3 years. At age 50 years, the estimated residual survival was 37.3 years with intensive treatment and 34.4 years with standard treatment (difference, 2.9 years [95% CI, 0.9-5.0 years]; P = .008). At age 65 years, residual survival was 24.5 years with intensive treatment and 23.3 years with standard treatment (difference, 1.1 years [95% CI, 0.1-2.1 years]; P = .03). Absolute survival gains with intensive vs standard BP control decreased with age, but the relative benefits were consistent (4% to 9%). Conclusions and Relevance: Intensive BP control improves projected survival by 6 months to 3 years among middle-aged and older adults at high cardiovascular risk but without diabetes mellitus. These post hoc actuarial analyses from SPRINT support the survival benefits of intensive BP control, especially among middle-aged adults at risk. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.
Authors: Brian Claggett; Milton Packer; John J V McMurray; Karl Swedberg; Jean Rouleau; Michael R Zile; Pardeep Jhund; Martin Lefkowitz; Victor Shi; Scott D Solomon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nilay S Shah; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Martin O'Flaherty; Simon Capewell; Kiarri N Kershaw; Mercedes Carnethon; Sadiya S Khan Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Patrick Liu; Gregory A Roth; Marie Ng; Stan Biryukov; Laurie Marczak; Lily Alexander; Kara Estep; Kalkidan Hassen Abate; Tomi F Akinyemiju; Raghib Ali; Nelson Alvis-Guzman; Peter Azzopardi; Amitava Banerjee; Till Bärnighausen; Arindam Basu; Tolesa Bekele; Derrick A Bennett; Sibhatu Biadgilign; Ferrán Catalá-López; Valery L Feigin; Joao C Fernandes; Florian Fischer; Alemseged Aregay Gebru; Philimon Gona; Rajeev Gupta; Graeme J Hankey; Jost B Jonas; Suzanne E Judd; Young-Ho Khang; Ardeshir Khosravi; Yun Jin Kim; Ruth W Kimokoti; Yoshihiro Kokubo; Dhaval Kolte; Alan Lopez; Paulo A Lotufo; Reza Malekzadeh; Yohannes Adama Melaku; George A Mensah; Awoke Misganaw; Ali H Mokdad; Andrew E Moran; Haseeb Nawaz; Bruce Neal; Frida Namnyak Ngalesoni; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Farshad Pourmalek; Anwar Rafay; Rajesh Kumar Rai; David Rojas-Rueda; Uchechukwu K Sampson; Itamar S Santos; Monika Sawhney; Aletta E Schutte; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Girma Temam Shifa; Ivy Shiue; Bemnet Amare Tedla; Amanda G Thrift; Marcello Tonelli; Thomas Truelsen; Nikolaos Tsilimparis; Kingsley Nnanna Ukwaja; Olalekan A Uthman; Tommi Vasankari; Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian; Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov; Theo Vos; Ronny Westerman; Lijing L Yan; Yuichiro Yano; Naohiro Yonemoto; Maysaa El Sayed Zaki; Christopher J L Murray Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Brian Claggett; John M Lachin; Stefan Hantel; David Fitchett; Silvio E Inzucchi; Hans J Woerle; Jyothis T George; Bernard Zinman Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Walter T Ambrosius; Kaycee M Sink; Capri G Foy; Dan R Berlowitz; Alfred K Cheung; William C Cushman; Lawrence J Fine; David C Goff; Karen C Johnson; Anthony A Killeen; Cora E Lewis; Suzanne Oparil; David M Reboussin; Michael V Rocco; Joni K Snyder; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright; Paul K Whelton Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: William E Haley; Olivia N Gilbert; Robert F Riley; Jill C Newman; Christianne L Roumie; Jeffrey Whittle; Ian M Kronish; Leonardo Tamariz; Alan Wiggers; Donald E Morisky; Molly B Conroy; Eugene Kovalik; Nancy R Kressin; Paul Muntner; David C Goff Journal: J Am Soc Hypertens Date: 2016-09-07
Authors: Jackson T Wright; Jeff D Williamson; Paul K Whelton; Joni K Snyder; Kaycee M Sink; Michael V Rocco; David M Reboussin; Mahboob Rahman; Suzanne Oparil; Cora E Lewis; Paul L Kimmel; Karen C Johnson; David C Goff; Lawrence J Fine; Jeffrey A Cutler; William C Cushman; Alfred K Cheung; Walter T Ambrosius Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Adam P Bress; Brandon K Bellows; Jordan B King; Rachel Hess; Srinivasan Beddhu; Zugui Zhang; Dan R Berlowitz; Molly B Conroy; Larry Fine; Suzanne Oparil; Donald E Morisky; Lewis E Kazis; Natalia Ruiz-Negrón; Jamie Powell; Leonardo Tamariz; Jeff Whittle; Jackson T Wright; Mark A Supiano; Alfred K Cheung; William S Weintraub; Andrew E Moran Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dae Hyun Kim; Curtis Tatsuoka; Zhengyi Chen; Jackson T Wright; Michelle C Odden; Srinivasan Beddhu; Brandon K Bellows; Adam Bress; Thaddeus Carson; William C Cushman; Karen C Johnson; Donald E Morisky; Henry Punzi; Leonardo Tamariz; Song Yang; Lee-Jen Wei Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Muthiah Vaduganathan; Silvio E Inzucchi; Naveed Sattar; David H Fitchett; Anne Pernille Ofstad; Martina Brueckmann; Jyothis T George; Subodh Verma; Michaela Mattheus; Christoph Wanner; Bernard Zinman; Javed Butler Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 6.408
Authors: Orna Reges; Hongyan Ning; John T Wilkins; Colin O Wu; Xin Tian; Michael J Domanski; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Norrina B Allen Journal: Hypertension Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Brandon K Bellows; Yiyi Zhang; Zugui Zhang; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Adam P Bress; Jordan B King; Paul Kolm; William C Cushman; Karen C Johnson; Leonardo Tamariz; Elizabeth C Oelsner; Steven Shea; Anne B Newman; Diane G Ives; David Couper; Andrew E Moran; William S Weintraub Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Donald K Hayes; Sandra L Jackson; Yanfeng Li; Gregory Wozniak; Stavros Tsipas; Yuling Hong; Angela M Thompson-Paul; Hilary K Wall; Cathleen Gillespie; Brent M Egan; Matthew D Ritchey; Fleetwood Loustalot Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 3.080
Authors: Kieran F Docherty; Pardeep S Jhund; Brian Claggett; João Pedro Ferreira; Olof Bengtsson; Silvio E Inzucchi; Lars Køber; Mikhail N Kosiborod; Anna Maria Langkilde; Felipe A Martinez; Piotr Ponikowski; Marc S Sabatine; Mikaela Sjöstrand; Scott D Solomon; John J V McMurray Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 30.154
Authors: Mary Ward; Catherine F Hughes; J J Strain; Rosie Reilly; Conal Cunningham; Anne M Molloy; Geraldine Horigan; Miriam Casey; Kevin McCarroll; Maurice O'Kane; Michael J Gibney; Albert Flynn; Janette Walton; Breige A McNulty; Adrian McCann; Laura Kirwan; John M Scott; Helene McNulty Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Ivan Lechner; Martin Reindl; Christina Tiller; Magdalena Holzknecht; Sarah Niederreiter; Agnes Mayr; Gert Klug; Christoph Brenner; Axel Bauer; Bernhard Metzler; Sebastian Johannes Reinstadler Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 2.357