Abstract:Diabetes is a major and growing cause of cardiovascular disease worldwide. Efforts to reduce cardiovascular risk by targeting the fundamental abnormality in diabetes through intensive glucose lowering have only produced modest benefits and may carry some risks, so alternative strategies have been sought. Blood pressure (BP) lowering has been widely recommended for protection against cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes as well as other groups at high risk. BP targets recommended by guideline groups have been progressively lowered over time, and intensive BP lowering to below 130/80 is now widely advocated for individuals with diabetes. Although evidence from the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study [1], the Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) study [2,3] and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) [4], and also the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC) meta-analysis support intensive BP control and a lower target in patients with diabetes [5], the target of 130/80 mmHg has not specifically been assessed by any of these [6]. The publication of the ACCORD trial BP lowering arm in 2010 has led many to question these recommendations [7]. In this large study with 4733 patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, intensive BP lowering to a target less than 120 mmHg failed to demonstrate clear benefits for fatal or nonfatal major cardiovascular events as compared with a target below 140/90 mmHg. Further uncertainty was introduced by a narrowly focused Cochrane review in people with hypertension that reported no benefit for BP targets below 130/85 mmHg compared with usual targets [8]. Finally, observational analyses of clinical trial datasets have reported associations between lower BP levels and higher coronary disease risk. However, with post-hoc analyses, the main virtue of clinical trials (randomization) is lost, so that it is not certain whether this is causal or represents the effects of preclinical disease both lowering BP and independently increasing risk [9]. There is, therefore, substantial uncertainty regarding the value of intensive BP lowering in people with diabetes. In this edition of the Journal of Hypertension, Reboldi et al. report a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effects of BP lowering in patients with diabetes on the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke that helps to bring some clarity to the area [10]. This study pooled the results of 31 randomized controlled trials including 73 913 patients with diabetes that compared different BP lowering agents or strategies. The results showed overall benefits produced by BP lowering for stroke and MI that was mainly observed in the placebo controlled and BP target trials. In the latter, more intensive BP lowering reduced the risk of stroke by 39% [relative risk (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48–0.79, P < 0.001] and demonstrated a trend towards benefit for MI that approached but did not achieve statistical significance (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74–1.02, P = 0.084). Meta-regression revealed that the risk of stroke was nearly decreased by 13% for each 5 mmHg SBP reduction. Importantly, although an association between the risk of MI and the extent of BP lowering was not confirmed, a ‘ J-curve’ for coronary events was not observed and was effectively excluded down to a SBP level of 120 mmHg. Finally, no clear differences between different drug classes were observed. Given this evidence, the authors conclude that protection against stroke increases with the magnitude of BP reduction, whereas some uncertainty persists for coronary events. A key question is why the findings from this systematic review appear to differ from the results of individual trials such as the ACCORD study [7] and also from the recent Cochrane review [8]. In both cases, the most likely reason for the lack of benefit observed relates to limited statistical power. Few individual trials have recorded sufficient numbers of events and achieved large enough BP differences between randomized groups, to detect plausible effects of intensive BP control regimens on vascular outcomes. Even in the large ACCORD study, patient and treatment factors led to a cardiovascular event rate that was almost half of the expected rate, so that the BP arm had less than 70% power to detect the predefined 20% risk reduction goal, and even less power to detect smaller differences. Power is also an issue for the Cochrane review, where narrow criteria were used to identify eligible studies leading to limited data availability. What are the implications of this study for clinical practice? Firstly, intensive BP control aiming for lower BP targets clearly and consistently reduces the risk of stroke, a common and devastating event frequently observed in people with diabetes. Therefore, BP lowering should play a primary role in stroke prevention, and intensive BP lowering is clearly appropriate in people at high stroke risk. Secondly, intensive BP lowering does not increase the risk of coronary events and indeed may produce coronary benefits. The weaker association observed in this study is consistent with that reported from previous meta-analyses of both observational [11] and randomized trial data [5]. This suggests that concerns about lower BP targets in the commonly observed range and the risk of coronary disease derived from observational studies are likely due to reverse causality. This is further supported by a review of different BP lowering targets in the general population which suggested that both stroke and coronary disease benefits are achieved with lower BP targets [12]. In addition, a systematic review of large randomized controlled trials in patients with normal BP levels and a history of cardiovascular disease found that BP lowering consistently reduced the risk of MI (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69–0.93), heart failure (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80–0.90) and cardiovascular death (RR 0.83 95% CI0.69–0.99) as well as stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61–0.98) [13]. More data regarding the effects of different BP targets on coronary events are required and should be provided by the planned Systolic blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) trial in people without diabetes (NCT01206062). An additional important consideration is the effect of intensive BP lowering on other outcomes, including kidney disease, eye disease and adverse events. This has not been addressed by this review and will be an important area of study going forward. Several studies have provided important new information about BP management over recent years. As the role of intensive BP lowering in patients with diabetes or other patients at high cardiovascular risk continues to be debated [14], the present systematic review is timely, clearly supporting a role for intensive BP management in diabetes. Although we still have much to learn, this data should help to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease in this high-risk patient group.

Great debate: pre-diabetes is not an evidence-based treatment target for cardiovascular risk reduction

Pre-Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome, and Cardiovascular Risk

Cardiovascular risk reduction in type 2 diabetes: What the non-specialist needs to know about current guidelines

The underestimated risk of prediabetes on cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure with reduced left ventricular function

Metabolic Syndrome in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases and Diabetes—still a Matter of Debate?

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk stratification and management in type 2 diabetes: review of recent evidence-based guidelines

The current landscape for diabetes treatment: Preventing diabetes-associated CV risk

Evidence of a bi-directional relationship between heart failure and diabetes: a strategy for the detection of glucose abnormalities and diabetes prevention in patients with heart failure

Glycaemic control is still central in the hierarchy of priorities in type 2 diabetes management

Management of dyslipidemia and atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in prediabetes

Does diabetes prevention translate into reduced long-term vascular complications of diabetes?

Blood Pressure Management in Diabetes: a Path Forward?

Diagnosis and Management of Prediabetes: A Review

Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes by Lifestyle Changes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Management from a Glucocentric Approach to Cardio-Renal Risk Reduction: The New Paradigm of Care

The Silent Threat: A Retrospective Cohort Study on the Impact of Prediabetes on ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Survival—A Call to Action!

Benefits and harms of intensive glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes

Prediabetes and Cardiometabolic Risk: The Need for Improved Diagnostic Strategies and Treatment to Prevent Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease

The evolution of type 2 diabetes management: glycemic control and beyond with SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists

Risk Related to Pre-Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetes Mellitus in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial

Diabetes and pre-diabetes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction