Hypertension in Patients with Diabetes: Questions
Zachary Bloomgarden,Ning Guang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-0407.2010.00083.x
IF: 4.53
2010-01-01
Journal of Diabetes
Abstract:A major component of the treatment of people with diabetes is the management of hypertension. Studies carried out in the 1990s show that the rate of deterioration of renal function slows progressively as mean blood pressure (MBP; calculated as one-third systolic blood pressure (SBP) plus two-thirds diastolic blood pressure (DBP)) decreases from approximately 120 mmHg (∼170/95 mmHg) to approximately 95 mmHg (∼130/80 mmHg).1 A recent meta-analysis of blood pressure trials in diabetic people showed a trend to reduction in mortality and cardiovascular (CV) events comparing DBP of 85 vs 90 mmHg.2 In this context, the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) blood pressure study is of great interest. In an effort to look at potential benefits of MBP levels below 90 mmHg, 4733 Type 2 diabetic patients at increased CV risk were randomized to more versus less intensive blood pressure treatment, resulting in blood pressure levels of 119/64 mmHg (mean 82.3 mmHg) and 133/71 mmHg (mean 91.7 mmHg), respectively.3 The groups required means of 3.4 vs 2.3 blood pressure-lowering medications, comparable to the number of medications required in earlier studies.1 Over the 6-year period of study, stroke was significantly reduced by half, but the rates of these events were low at 0.32% vs 0.53% annually, respectively. Furthermore, adverse effects occurred more often in the intensively treated group, with 24% vs 15% having elevations in serum creatinine, and with more hypotension, bradycardia, and both hypo- and hyperkalemia. There was a non-significant 13% lower rate of myocardial infarction and a non-significant 6% greater rate of CV mortality in the intensively treated group. What, then, should be the goals of blood pressure reduction in people with diabetes? Is the optimal blood pressure in people with diabetes a mean of 95 mmHg, or DBP of 85 mmHg, or 133/71, 119/64, or 130/80 mmHg (mean 96.7 mmHg), as recommended by JNC-7 (The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure),4 the American Diabetes Association,5 and numerous other groups? It seems fair to say that the answer is not known with certainty. Agents affecting the renin–antiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) appear particularly useful in diabetic people, certainly for the prevention of worse renal outcome,5 but if the average diabetic patient requires two to four blood pressure-lowering medications, should the second also be an RAAS inhibitor? What evidence there is suggests not.6,7 Should it be a diuretic? These have long been recognized to have adverse metabolic effects,8 but led to improved outcomes in ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid. Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial).9 Should it be a calcium channel blocker? A recent study suggests favorable outcomes with preservation of the glomerular filtration rate.10 Should it be a beta-blocker? Thiazide plus cardiospecific beta-blocker combinations are probably undesirable compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors plus calcium channel blockers, but combination alpha/beta-blockers may have particularly desirable characteristics and, in many comparisons, blood pressure levels have not been equal on different regimens, so it becomes unclear whether different medications or different blood pressure goals are what is being contrasted.11 In the context of all these questions, an interesting theme emerging from recent sets of observations has addressed the potential beneficial interaction between blood pressure- and glucose-lowering treatments. Early analyses of blood pressure- vs glucose-lowering treatment in the UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study) suggested considerably greater benefit of the former.12 It is, however, intriguing to observe that the slopes of the glycemic control versus event rate curves for macro- and microvascular events are steeper than those of SBP vs event rates in the UKPDS,13,14 suggesting that, if anything, the potential for benefit of glycemic control may exceed that for benefit of blood pressure lowering. In this context, one may further observe that the incidence of total diabetes-related endpoints by intention-to-treat in the 887 patients randomized to both the blood pressure and glycemic interventions in the UKPDS shows additive benefit of the two interventions.15 The ADVANCE (Action in Diabetes And Vascular disease–preterax And diamicroN MR Controlled Evaluation) study included a glycemic treatment comparison, of A1c levels of 6.9% vs 7.5%, and a perindopril plus indapamide versus placebo comparison, with blood pressure levels of 138/78 vs 145/81, with outcomes compared among approximately 2785 diabetic people in each of the four arms of the study.16 The findings were important: mortality was reduced in the group randomized to both interventions, as was microalbuminuria development and the combined outcome of new or worsening nephropathy. This study, then, also shows additive benefit of blood pressure and glycemic treatment. We await with interest similar analyses from the ACCORD investigators. What should we conclude as clinicians intervening in the management of this complex condition? Blood pressure lowering is clearly of great importance and the suggestion of reduction in stroke may be of greater consequence in Asian populations than in those treated in ACCORD. Blood pressure treatment must be performed in a careful manner to avoid complications, and excessively aggressive intervention may particularly be worrisome in terms of renal function. Just as we have learned from ACCORD of the need to balance hypoglycemia and glycemic control,17 we must balance the adverse effects of blood pressure lowering with the benefits of such treatment. Importantly, we should be aware of the potential for harmonious interaction of combined glucose and blood pressure lowering.