2.3.2.0 Ran­dom­ized Con­trolled Tri­als of In­ten­sive Ver­sus Stan­dard Blood Pres­sure Con­trol

The Ac­tion to Con­trol Car­dio­vas­cu­lar Risk in Di­a­betes blood pres­sure (AC­CORD BP) trial pro­vides the strongest di­rect as­sess­ment of the benefits and risks of in­ten­sive blood pres­sure con­trol among peo­ple with type 2 di­a­betes (28). In AC­CORD BP, com­pared with stan­dard blood pres­sure con­trol (tar­get sys­tolic blood pres­sure <140 mmHg), in­ten­sive blood pres­sure con­trol (tar­get sys­tolic blood pres­sure <120 mmHg) did not re­duce total major atheroscle­rot­ic car­dio­vas­cu­lar events but did re­duce the risk of stroke, at the ex­pense of in­creased ad­verse events (Table 10.1). The AC­CORD BP re­sults sug­gest that blood pres­sure tar­gets more in­ten­sive than <140/90 mmHg are not like­ly to im­prove car­dio­vas­cu­lar out­comes among most peo­ple with type 2 di­a­betes but may be rea­son­able for pa­tients who may de­rive the most benefit and have been ed­u­cat­ed about added treat­ment bur­den, side ef­fects, and costs, as dis­cussed below.

Ad­di­tion­al stud­ies, such as the Sys­tolic Blood Pres­sure In­ter­ven­tion Trial (SPRINT) and the Hy­per­ten­sion Op­ti­mal Treat­ment (HOT) trial, also ex­am­ined ef­fects of in­ten­sive ver­sus stan­dard con­trol (Table 10.1), though the rel­e­vance of their re­sults to peo­ple with di­a­betes is less clear. The Ac­tion in Di­a­betes and Vas­cu­lar Dis­ease: Preter­ax and Di­ami­cron MR Con­trolled Eval­u­a­tion–Blood Pres­sure (AD­VANCE BP) trial did not ex­p­li­cit­ly test blood pres­sure tar­gets (29); the achieved blood pres­sure in the in­ter­ven­tion group was high­er than that achieved in the AC­CORD BP in­ten­sive arm and would be con­sis­tent with a tar­get blood pres­sure of <140/90 mmHg. No­tably, AC­CORD BP and SPRINT mea­sured blood pres­sure using au­to­mat­ed office blood pres­sure mea­sure­ment, which yields val­ues that are gen­er­ally lower than typ­i­cal office blood pres­sure read­ings by ap­prox­i­mate­ly 5–10 mmHg (30), sug­gesting that im­ple­ment­ing the AC­CORD BP or SPRINT pro­to­cols in an outpa­tient clin­ic might re­quire a sys­tolic blood pres­sure tar­get high­er than <120 mmHg, such as <130 mmHg.

A num­ber of post hoc anal­y­ses have at­tempt­ed to ex­plain the ap­par­ent­ly di­ver­gent re­sults of AC­CORD BP and SPRINT. Some in­ves­ti­ga­tors have ar­gued that the di­ver­gent re­sults are not due to dif­ferences be­tween peo­ple with and with­out di­a­betes but rather are due to dif­ferences in study de­sign or to char­ac­ter­is­tics other than di­a­betes (31-33). Oth­ers have opined that the di­ver­gent re­sults are most read­i­ly ex­plained by the lack of benefit of in­ten­sive blood pres­sure con­trol on car­dio­vas­cu­lar mor­tal­i­ty in AC­CORD BP, which may be due to dif­ferential mech­a­nisms un­der­ly­ing car­dio­vas­cu­lar dis­ease in type 2 di­a­betes, to chance, or both (34).

Table 10.1—Ran­dom­ized con­trolled tri­als of in­ten­sive ver­sus stan­dard hy­per­ten­sion treat­ment strate­gies

ACS, acute coro­nary syn­drome; AKI, acute kid­ney in­jury; CVD, car­dio­vas­cu­lar dis­ease; HF, heart fail­ure; MI, my­ocar­dial in­farc­tion; T2D, type 2 di­a­betes. Data from this table can also be found in the ADA po­si­tion state­ment “Di­a­betes and Hy­per­ten­sion” (17).