Blood pressure-lowering treatment for prevention of major cardiovascular diseases in people with and without type 2 diabetes: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis

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 <120 mm Hg to ≥170 mm Hg). To estimate absolute risk reductions, we used a Poisson regression model over the follow-up duration. The effect of each of the five major blood pressure-lowering drug classes, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, β blockers, calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics, was estimated using a network meta-analysis framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018099283. 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

Antihypertensive treatment and risk of cancer: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Background: Some studies have suggested a link between antihypertensive medication and cancer, but the evidence is so far inconclusive. Thus, we aimed to investigate this association in a large individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Methods: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from Jan 1, 1966, to Sept 1, 2019, to identify potentially eligible randomised controlled trials. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing one blood pressure lowering drug class with a placebo, inactive control, or other blood pressure lowering drug. We also required that trials had at least 1000 participant years of follow-up in each treatment group. Trials without cancer event information were excluded. We requested individual participant data from the authors of eligible trials. We pooled individual participant-level data from eligible trials and assessed the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), β blockers, calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics on cancer risk in one-stage individual participant data and network meta-analyses. Cause-specific fixed-effects Cox regression models, stratified by trial, were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). The primary outcome was any cancer event, defined as the first occurrence of any cancer diagnosed after randomisation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018099283). Findings: 33 trials met the inclusion criteria, and included 260 447 participants with 15 012 cancer events. Median follow-up of included participants was 4·2 years (IQR 3·0–5·0). In the individual participant data meta-analysis comparing each drug class with all other comparators, no associations were identified between any antihypertensive drug class and risk of any cancer (HR 0·99 [95% CI 0·95–1·04] for ACEIs; 0·96 [0·92–1·01] for ARBs; 0·98 [0·89–1·07] for β blockers; 1·01 [0·95–1·07] for thiazides), with the exception of calcium channel blockers (1·06 [1·01–1·11]). In the network meta-analysis comparing drug classes against placebo, we found no excess cancer risk with any drug class (HR 1·00 [95% CI 0·93–1·09] for ACEIs; 0·99 [0·92–1·06] for ARBs; 0·99 [0·89–1·11] for β blockers; 1·04 [0·96–1·13] for calcium channel blockers; 1·00 [0·90–1·10] for thiazides). Interpretation: We found no consistent evidence that antihypertensive medication use had any effect on cancer risk. Although such findings are reassuring, evidence for some comparisons was insufficient to entirely rule out excess risk, in particular for calcium channel blockers. Funding: British Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, Oxford Martin School

Age-stratified and blood-pressure-stratified effects of blood-pressure-lowering pharmacotherapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis

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 (<55 years, 55-64 years, 65-74 years, 75-84 years, and ≥85 years) and blood pressure categories (in 10 mm Hg increments from <120 mm Hg to ≥170 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and from <70 mm Hg to ≥110 mm Hg diastolic). We used a fixed effects one-stage approach and applied Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, to analyse the data. The primary outcome was defined as either a composite of fatal or non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring hospital admission. 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 p interaction=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 p interaction=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

Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis

Background: The effects of pharmacological blood pressure lowering at normal or high-normal blood pressure ranges in people with or without pre-existing cardiovascular disease remains uncertain. We analysed individual participant data from randomised trials to investigate the effects of blood pressure lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events by baseline levels of systolic blood pressure. Methods: We did a meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from 48 randomised trials of pharmacological blood pressure lowering medications versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment regimens, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each group. Trials exclusively done with participants with heart failure or short-term interventions in participants with acute myocardial infarction or other acute settings were excluded. Data from 51 studies published between 1972 and 2013 were obtained by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (Oxford University, Oxford, UK). We pooled the data to investigate the stratified effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment in participants with and without prevalent cardiovascular disease (ie, any reports of stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischaemic heart disease before randomisation), overall and across seven systolic blood pressure categories (ranging from <120 to ≥170 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a major cardiovascular event (defined as a composite of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring admission to hospital), analysed as per intention to treat. Findings: Data for 344 716 participants from 48 randomised clinical trials were available for this analysis. Pre-randomisation mean systolic/diastolic blood pressures were 146/84 mm Hg in participants with previous cardiovascular disease (n=157 728) and 157/89 mm Hg in participants without previous cardiovascular disease (n=186 988). There was substantial spread in participants' blood pressure at baseline, with 31 239 (19·8%) of participants with previous cardiovascular disease and 14 928 (8·0%) of individuals without previous cardiovascular disease having a systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg. The relative effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment were proportional to the intensity of systolic blood pressure reduction. After a median 4·15 years' follow-up (Q1–Q3 2·97–4·96), 42 324 participants (12·3%) had at least one major cardiovascular event. In participants without previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the incidence rate for developing a major cardiovascular event per 1000 person-years was 31·9 (95% CI 31·3–32·5) in the comparator group and 25·9 (25·4–26·4) in the intervention group. In participants with previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the corresponding rates were 39·7 (95% CI 39·0–40·5) and 36·0 (95% CI 35·3–36·7), in the comparator and intervention groups, respectively. Hazard ratios (HR) associated with a reduction of systolic blood pressure by 5 mm Hg for a major cardiovascular event were 0·91, 95% CI 0·89–0·94 for partipants without previous cardiovascular disease and 0·89, 0·86–0·92, for those with previous cardiovascular disease. In stratified analyses, there was no reliable evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects on major cardiovascular events by baseline cardiovascular disease status or systolic blood pressure categories. Interpretation: In this large-scale analysis of randomised trials, a 5 mm Hg reduction of systolic blood pressure reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by about 10%, irrespective of previous diagnoses of cardiovascular disease, and even at normal or high–normal blood pressure values. These findings suggest that a fixed degree of pharmacological blood pressure lowering is similarly effective for primary and secondary prevention of major cardiovascular disease, even at blood pressure levels currently not considered for treatment. Physicians communicating the indication for blood pressure lowering treatment to their patients should emphasise its importance on reducing cardiovascular risk rather than focusing on blood pressure reduction itself. Funding: British Heart Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Martin School

Sex-Specific Effects of Blood Pressure Lowering Pharmacotherapy for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: An Individual Participant-Level Data Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether the relative effects of blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment on cardiovascular outcomes differ by sex, particularly when BP is not substantially elevated, has been uncertain. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant-level data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological BP lowering. We pooled the data and categorized participants by sex, systolic BP categories in 10-mm Hg increments from <120 to ≥170 mm Hg, and age categories spanning from <55 to ≥85 years. We used fixed-effect one-stage individual participant-level data meta-analyses and applied Cox proportional hazard models, stratified by trial, to analyze the data. RESULTS: We included data from 51 randomized controlled trials involving 358 636 (42% women) participants. Over 4.2 years of median follow-up, a 5-mm Hg reduction in systolic BP decreased the risk of major cardiovascular events both in women and men (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.92 [0.89-0.95] for women and 0.90 [0.88-0.93] for men; P for interaction, 1). There was no evidence for heterogeneity of relative treatment effects by sex for the major cardiovascular disease, its components, or across the different baseline BP categories (all P for interaction, ≥0.57). The effects in women and men were consistent across age categories and the types of antihypertensive medications (all P for interaction, ≥0.14). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of BP reduction were similar in women and men across all BP and age categories at randomization and with no evidence to suggest that drug classes had differing effects by sex. This study does not substantiate sex-based differences in BP-lowering treatment

An integrated general practice and pharmacy-based intervention to promote the use of appropriate preventive medications among individuals at high cardiovascular disease risk: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are responsible for significant morbidity, premature mortality, and economic burden. Despite established evidence that supports the use of preventive medications among patients at high CVD risk, treatment gaps remain. Building on prior evidence and a theoretical framework, a complex intervention has been designed to address these gaps among high-risk, under-treated patients in the Australian primary care setting. This intervention comprises a general practice quality improvement tool incorporating clinical decision support and audit/feedback capabilities; availability of a range of CVD polypills (fixed-dose combinations of two blood pressure lowering agents, a statin ± aspirin) for prescription when appropriate; and access to a pharmacy-based program to support long-term medication adherence and lifestyle modification. Methods: Following a systematic development process, the intervention will be evaluated in a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial including 70 general practices for a median period of 18 months. The 35 general practices in the intervention group will work with a nominated partner pharmacy, whereas those in the control group will provide usual care without access to the intervention tools. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients at high CVD risk who were inadequately treated at baseline who achieve target blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels at the study end. The outcomes will be analyzed using data from electronic medical records, utilizing a validated extraction tool. Detailed process and economic evaluations will also be performed. Discussion: The study intends to establish evidence about an intervention that combines technological innovation with team collaboration between patients, pharmacists, and general practitioners (GPs) for CVD prevention. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN1261600023342

Speed of processing training results in lower risk of dementia

• A randomized trial examined the efficacy of three cognitive training programs. • Speed of processing cognitive training significantly reduced dementia risk. • Each session of speed training completed was associated with reduced dementia risk

Blood pressure-lowering treatment for prevention of major cardiovascular diseases in people with and without type 2 diabetes: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis

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 <120 mm Hg to ≥170 mm Hg). To estimate absolute risk reductions, we used a Poisson regression model over the follow-up duration. The effect of each of the five major blood pressure-lowering drug classes, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, β blockers, calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics, was estimated using a network meta-analysis framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018099283. 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

Hyperhomocysteinaemia is associated with coronary events in type 2 diabetes

Objectives. Amongst nondiabetic individuals, a high serum homocysteine concentration is an independent but relatively weak risk factor for coronary events. However, it is not known whether homocysteine increases risk of coronary events in type 2 diabetes. Therefore, we examined the combined effect of homocysteine and type 2 diabetes on risk of fatal and nonfatal coronary events. Subjects. We assessed the 10-year risk of coronary events associated with homocysteine amongst diabetic (n = 140) and nondiabetic (n = 361) individuals. Design. We did this in the Hoorn Study, a population-based study of glucose tolerance and related complications in Caucasian men and women aged 50-75 years. Results. The incidence rate for coronary events was 2.63 (29 of 140) per 100 person-years amongst diabetic and 1.29 (42 of 361) amongst nondiabetic individuals. Amongst diabetic individuals, risk of coronary events increased 28% for each 5-μmol