User login
ORLANDO – Results from the SPRINT hypertension trial had been highly anticipated ever since the study stopped early in August and the sponsoring National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute released the top-line positive result in September that treating systolic blood pressure to a target of less than 120 mm Hg led to statistically significant drops in a composite of cardiovascular endpoints as well as in all-cause death, compared with the standard target of less than 140 mm Hg.
When the much fuller report on the results finally came out in a special session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions as well as in a simultaneous publication (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1511939), the data left attendees buzzing and debating what the results will mean for revised hypertension guidelines and for clinical practice.
The most prominent reactions were accolades for the trial, starting with the independent discussants that the AHA invited to comment at the session, an outpouring of praise reminiscent of that showered on a hit movie:
“A major coup. Thank you, NHLBI,” declared Dr. Marc A. Pfeffer, professor of medicine at Harvard and a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Thank you for this groundbreaking study,” said Dr. Clive Rosendorff, professor and cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.
“A remarkable trial. The most important blood pressure study in the last 40 years,” gushed Dr. Daniel W. Jones, professor of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Oxford, and director of clinical and population sciences at the Mississippi Center for Obesity Research, Jackson.
Following the huzzahs came a more substantive discussion among meeting attendees of what results from the 9,361-patient Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial will mean for revised blood pressure goals in U.S. guidelines, what it might mean for defining who has hypertension, and how it might influence practice. Perhaps the most pressing issue for the AHA and American College of Cardiology panel that began work on a new revision of hypertension treatment guidelines earlier this year is how to reconcile the SPRINT results with finding from prior studies, especially the 2010 report of results from the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) trial (N Engl J Med. 2010;362[17]:1575-85.).
ACCORD, at half the size of SPRINT with 4,733 patients, had a very similar design as SPRINT but included only patients with diabetes while SPRINT excluded patients with diabetes. ACCORD failed to show a significant difference in its primary composite outcome after an average of 4.7 years between patients randomized to a hypertension treatment target of less than 140 mm Hg or less than 120 mm Hg, the same goals as in SPRINT. ACCORD did show a statistically significant 41% relative risk reduction for stroke, also in contrast to SPRINT, which showed a much less robust and nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction in stroke.
In his commentary on SPRINT, Dr. Jones offered several possible explanations for the divergent results, including a possible inherent difference in vascular physiology between patients with diabetes and those with normal glycemic control; the younger patients enrolled in ACCORD (patients averaged 62 years old in ACCORD and 68 years old in SPRINT, and 28% of patients in SPRINT were at least 75 years old); the use of hydrochlorothiazide as the predominant diuretic in ACCORD versus predominant use of chlorthalidone in SPRINT; and the multiple interventions simultaneously tested in ACCORD, which also randomized patients into two arms with respect to glycemic control and into two arms of different lipid-controlling treatment.
SPRINT’s results “need to be assessed in the context of ACCORD,” commented Dr. Salim Yusuf in an interview. “I think the real result is somewhere in between the results of SPRINT and ACCORD” in terms of the appropriate systolic blood pressure target. What we need is a balanced perspective that takes all the trials. SPRINT was a very good trial, but like all studies it should be interpreted in the context of all the other related studies, not in isolation,” said Dr. Yusuf, professor and director of the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.
“Understandably, when something like SPRINT comes out there is a lot of enthusiasm. The first reaction is always ‘Wow!’ For patients who meet SPRINT’s enrollment criteria I think we will treat to a target of less than 120 mm Hg. But the guideline writers need to discuss SPRINT and balance it,” he said.
Despite his regard for SPRINT, Dr. Yusuf cited several additional concerns he has about the trial:
• Its early stoppage (SPRINT had originally been designed to run 5-6 years, but it was halted after an average treatment duration of just over 3 years). “When you stop a trial early there is always an upward bias. The apparent treatment effect gets inflated,” he said.
• The increased rate of acute kidney injury among patients randomized to the more aggressive treatment arm, a 4.1% rate, compared with a 2.5% rate in the control patients randomized to treatment to a goal of systolic pressure less than 140 mm Hg, a statistically significant difference.
• The “highly selected, high-risk” patients enrolled into SPRINT. “You can’t extrapolate the results to the average patient,” Dr. Yusuf said.
Some of these concerns and cautions were shared by Dr. Prakash Deedwania, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, although overall he called the SPRINT results “very exciting.”
“Superficially, SPRINT seems to say treat everyone to a blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, but that’s not the case. The patients in SPRINT were primarily very well established patients with hypertension. I’d be concerned about an elderly patient with cardiovascular disease and a blood pressure of 130 mm Hg. If you reduce that to less than 120 mm Hg the diastolic pressure may also fall and that’s important for coronary perfusion.” He also cited the absence so far of a subanalysis of what happened to patients with preexisting renal disease and the lack of data on the outcomes of patients whose systolic pressure fell to levels well below 120 mm Hg.
For others, however, the overall, statistically significant 27% reduction in overall mortality was a reassuring indicator of the safety of the aggressive treatment regimen used in SPRINT. “If there was a meaningful worsening of renal function that harmed patients, you would not see a reduction in all-cause mortality,” commented Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, professor and associate chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“We have had so many trials that couldn’t dream of producing a reduction in all-cause mortality. Here we have a trial with a robust, clinically meaningful reduction in all-cause mortality that ultimately demonstrates the benefits outweigh the risks,” he said in an interview.
SPRINT “is a phenomenal breakthrough. It’s data we’ve been awaiting for 20-plus years, to now know that a lower blood pressure target is safe and absolutely essential, and where the benefits outweigh the risks,” Dr. Fonarow said. “Now implementation becomes critical. The SPRINT results are truly practice changing.”
SPRINT received no commercial support. The study received antihypertensive drugs from Arbor and Takeda at no charge for a small percentage of enrolled patients. Dr. Pfeffer has been a consultant to more than 20 companies. Dr. Rosendorff has been a consultant to McNeil and received research funding from Eisai. Dr. Yusuf has received honoraria and research grants from Sanofi-Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, and Astra Zeneca. Dr. Jones, Dr. Deedwania, and Dr. Fonarow had no disclosures.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ORLANDO – Results from the SPRINT hypertension trial had been highly anticipated ever since the study stopped early in August and the sponsoring National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute released the top-line positive result in September that treating systolic blood pressure to a target of less than 120 mm Hg led to statistically significant drops in a composite of cardiovascular endpoints as well as in all-cause death, compared with the standard target of less than 140 mm Hg.
When the much fuller report on the results finally came out in a special session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions as well as in a simultaneous publication (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1511939), the data left attendees buzzing and debating what the results will mean for revised hypertension guidelines and for clinical practice.
The most prominent reactions were accolades for the trial, starting with the independent discussants that the AHA invited to comment at the session, an outpouring of praise reminiscent of that showered on a hit movie:
“A major coup. Thank you, NHLBI,” declared Dr. Marc A. Pfeffer, professor of medicine at Harvard and a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Thank you for this groundbreaking study,” said Dr. Clive Rosendorff, professor and cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.
“A remarkable trial. The most important blood pressure study in the last 40 years,” gushed Dr. Daniel W. Jones, professor of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Oxford, and director of clinical and population sciences at the Mississippi Center for Obesity Research, Jackson.
Following the huzzahs came a more substantive discussion among meeting attendees of what results from the 9,361-patient Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial will mean for revised blood pressure goals in U.S. guidelines, what it might mean for defining who has hypertension, and how it might influence practice. Perhaps the most pressing issue for the AHA and American College of Cardiology panel that began work on a new revision of hypertension treatment guidelines earlier this year is how to reconcile the SPRINT results with finding from prior studies, especially the 2010 report of results from the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) trial (N Engl J Med. 2010;362[17]:1575-85.).
ACCORD, at half the size of SPRINT with 4,733 patients, had a very similar design as SPRINT but included only patients with diabetes while SPRINT excluded patients with diabetes. ACCORD failed to show a significant difference in its primary composite outcome after an average of 4.7 years between patients randomized to a hypertension treatment target of less than 140 mm Hg or less than 120 mm Hg, the same goals as in SPRINT. ACCORD did show a statistically significant 41% relative risk reduction for stroke, also in contrast to SPRINT, which showed a much less robust and nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction in stroke.
In his commentary on SPRINT, Dr. Jones offered several possible explanations for the divergent results, including a possible inherent difference in vascular physiology between patients with diabetes and those with normal glycemic control; the younger patients enrolled in ACCORD (patients averaged 62 years old in ACCORD and 68 years old in SPRINT, and 28% of patients in SPRINT were at least 75 years old); the use of hydrochlorothiazide as the predominant diuretic in ACCORD versus predominant use of chlorthalidone in SPRINT; and the multiple interventions simultaneously tested in ACCORD, which also randomized patients into two arms with respect to glycemic control and into two arms of different lipid-controlling treatment.
SPRINT’s results “need to be assessed in the context of ACCORD,” commented Dr. Salim Yusuf in an interview. “I think the real result is somewhere in between the results of SPRINT and ACCORD” in terms of the appropriate systolic blood pressure target. What we need is a balanced perspective that takes all the trials. SPRINT was a very good trial, but like all studies it should be interpreted in the context of all the other related studies, not in isolation,” said Dr. Yusuf, professor and director of the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.
“Understandably, when something like SPRINT comes out there is a lot of enthusiasm. The first reaction is always ‘Wow!’ For patients who meet SPRINT’s enrollment criteria I think we will treat to a target of less than 120 mm Hg. But the guideline writers need to discuss SPRINT and balance it,” he said.
Despite his regard for SPRINT, Dr. Yusuf cited several additional concerns he has about the trial:
• Its early stoppage (SPRINT had originally been designed to run 5-6 years, but it was halted after an average treatment duration of just over 3 years). “When you stop a trial early there is always an upward bias. The apparent treatment effect gets inflated,” he said.
• The increased rate of acute kidney injury among patients randomized to the more aggressive treatment arm, a 4.1% rate, compared with a 2.5% rate in the control patients randomized to treatment to a goal of systolic pressure less than 140 mm Hg, a statistically significant difference.
• The “highly selected, high-risk” patients enrolled into SPRINT. “You can’t extrapolate the results to the average patient,” Dr. Yusuf said.
Some of these concerns and cautions were shared by Dr. Prakash Deedwania, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, although overall he called the SPRINT results “very exciting.”
“Superficially, SPRINT seems to say treat everyone to a blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, but that’s not the case. The patients in SPRINT were primarily very well established patients with hypertension. I’d be concerned about an elderly patient with cardiovascular disease and a blood pressure of 130 mm Hg. If you reduce that to less than 120 mm Hg the diastolic pressure may also fall and that’s important for coronary perfusion.” He also cited the absence so far of a subanalysis of what happened to patients with preexisting renal disease and the lack of data on the outcomes of patients whose systolic pressure fell to levels well below 120 mm Hg.
For others, however, the overall, statistically significant 27% reduction in overall mortality was a reassuring indicator of the safety of the aggressive treatment regimen used in SPRINT. “If there was a meaningful worsening of renal function that harmed patients, you would not see a reduction in all-cause mortality,” commented Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, professor and associate chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“We have had so many trials that couldn’t dream of producing a reduction in all-cause mortality. Here we have a trial with a robust, clinically meaningful reduction in all-cause mortality that ultimately demonstrates the benefits outweigh the risks,” he said in an interview.
SPRINT “is a phenomenal breakthrough. It’s data we’ve been awaiting for 20-plus years, to now know that a lower blood pressure target is safe and absolutely essential, and where the benefits outweigh the risks,” Dr. Fonarow said. “Now implementation becomes critical. The SPRINT results are truly practice changing.”
SPRINT received no commercial support. The study received antihypertensive drugs from Arbor and Takeda at no charge for a small percentage of enrolled patients. Dr. Pfeffer has been a consultant to more than 20 companies. Dr. Rosendorff has been a consultant to McNeil and received research funding from Eisai. Dr. Yusuf has received honoraria and research grants from Sanofi-Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, and Astra Zeneca. Dr. Jones, Dr. Deedwania, and Dr. Fonarow had no disclosures.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ORLANDO – Results from the SPRINT hypertension trial had been highly anticipated ever since the study stopped early in August and the sponsoring National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute released the top-line positive result in September that treating systolic blood pressure to a target of less than 120 mm Hg led to statistically significant drops in a composite of cardiovascular endpoints as well as in all-cause death, compared with the standard target of less than 140 mm Hg.
When the much fuller report on the results finally came out in a special session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions as well as in a simultaneous publication (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1511939), the data left attendees buzzing and debating what the results will mean for revised hypertension guidelines and for clinical practice.
The most prominent reactions were accolades for the trial, starting with the independent discussants that the AHA invited to comment at the session, an outpouring of praise reminiscent of that showered on a hit movie:
“A major coup. Thank you, NHLBI,” declared Dr. Marc A. Pfeffer, professor of medicine at Harvard and a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Thank you for this groundbreaking study,” said Dr. Clive Rosendorff, professor and cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York.
“A remarkable trial. The most important blood pressure study in the last 40 years,” gushed Dr. Daniel W. Jones, professor of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Oxford, and director of clinical and population sciences at the Mississippi Center for Obesity Research, Jackson.
Following the huzzahs came a more substantive discussion among meeting attendees of what results from the 9,361-patient Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial will mean for revised blood pressure goals in U.S. guidelines, what it might mean for defining who has hypertension, and how it might influence practice. Perhaps the most pressing issue for the AHA and American College of Cardiology panel that began work on a new revision of hypertension treatment guidelines earlier this year is how to reconcile the SPRINT results with finding from prior studies, especially the 2010 report of results from the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) trial (N Engl J Med. 2010;362[17]:1575-85.).
ACCORD, at half the size of SPRINT with 4,733 patients, had a very similar design as SPRINT but included only patients with diabetes while SPRINT excluded patients with diabetes. ACCORD failed to show a significant difference in its primary composite outcome after an average of 4.7 years between patients randomized to a hypertension treatment target of less than 140 mm Hg or less than 120 mm Hg, the same goals as in SPRINT. ACCORD did show a statistically significant 41% relative risk reduction for stroke, also in contrast to SPRINT, which showed a much less robust and nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction in stroke.
In his commentary on SPRINT, Dr. Jones offered several possible explanations for the divergent results, including a possible inherent difference in vascular physiology between patients with diabetes and those with normal glycemic control; the younger patients enrolled in ACCORD (patients averaged 62 years old in ACCORD and 68 years old in SPRINT, and 28% of patients in SPRINT were at least 75 years old); the use of hydrochlorothiazide as the predominant diuretic in ACCORD versus predominant use of chlorthalidone in SPRINT; and the multiple interventions simultaneously tested in ACCORD, which also randomized patients into two arms with respect to glycemic control and into two arms of different lipid-controlling treatment.
SPRINT’s results “need to be assessed in the context of ACCORD,” commented Dr. Salim Yusuf in an interview. “I think the real result is somewhere in between the results of SPRINT and ACCORD” in terms of the appropriate systolic blood pressure target. What we need is a balanced perspective that takes all the trials. SPRINT was a very good trial, but like all studies it should be interpreted in the context of all the other related studies, not in isolation,” said Dr. Yusuf, professor and director of the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.
“Understandably, when something like SPRINT comes out there is a lot of enthusiasm. The first reaction is always ‘Wow!’ For patients who meet SPRINT’s enrollment criteria I think we will treat to a target of less than 120 mm Hg. But the guideline writers need to discuss SPRINT and balance it,” he said.
Despite his regard for SPRINT, Dr. Yusuf cited several additional concerns he has about the trial:
• Its early stoppage (SPRINT had originally been designed to run 5-6 years, but it was halted after an average treatment duration of just over 3 years). “When you stop a trial early there is always an upward bias. The apparent treatment effect gets inflated,” he said.
• The increased rate of acute kidney injury among patients randomized to the more aggressive treatment arm, a 4.1% rate, compared with a 2.5% rate in the control patients randomized to treatment to a goal of systolic pressure less than 140 mm Hg, a statistically significant difference.
• The “highly selected, high-risk” patients enrolled into SPRINT. “You can’t extrapolate the results to the average patient,” Dr. Yusuf said.
Some of these concerns and cautions were shared by Dr. Prakash Deedwania, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, although overall he called the SPRINT results “very exciting.”
“Superficially, SPRINT seems to say treat everyone to a blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, but that’s not the case. The patients in SPRINT were primarily very well established patients with hypertension. I’d be concerned about an elderly patient with cardiovascular disease and a blood pressure of 130 mm Hg. If you reduce that to less than 120 mm Hg the diastolic pressure may also fall and that’s important for coronary perfusion.” He also cited the absence so far of a subanalysis of what happened to patients with preexisting renal disease and the lack of data on the outcomes of patients whose systolic pressure fell to levels well below 120 mm Hg.
For others, however, the overall, statistically significant 27% reduction in overall mortality was a reassuring indicator of the safety of the aggressive treatment regimen used in SPRINT. “If there was a meaningful worsening of renal function that harmed patients, you would not see a reduction in all-cause mortality,” commented Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, professor and associate chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“We have had so many trials that couldn’t dream of producing a reduction in all-cause mortality. Here we have a trial with a robust, clinically meaningful reduction in all-cause mortality that ultimately demonstrates the benefits outweigh the risks,” he said in an interview.
SPRINT “is a phenomenal breakthrough. It’s data we’ve been awaiting for 20-plus years, to now know that a lower blood pressure target is safe and absolutely essential, and where the benefits outweigh the risks,” Dr. Fonarow said. “Now implementation becomes critical. The SPRINT results are truly practice changing.”
SPRINT received no commercial support. The study received antihypertensive drugs from Arbor and Takeda at no charge for a small percentage of enrolled patients. Dr. Pfeffer has been a consultant to more than 20 companies. Dr. Rosendorff has been a consultant to McNeil and received research funding from Eisai. Dr. Yusuf has received honoraria and research grants from Sanofi-Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, and Astra Zeneca. Dr. Jones, Dr. Deedwania, and Dr. Fonarow had no disclosures.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point: The first full report of results from the SPRINT trial of hypertension treatment targets generated lots of opinions on their implications.
Major finding: Combined cardiovascular events occurred in 5.2% of patients treated to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg and 6.8% of patients treated to a target of less than 140 mm Hg.
Data source: The multicenter, randomized trial involved 9,361 patients.
Disclosures: SPRINT received no commercial support. The study received antihypertensive drugs from Arbor and Takeda at no charge for a small percentage of enrolled patients. Dr. Pfeffer has been a consultant to more than 20 companies. Dr. Rosendorff has been a consultant to McNeil and received research funding from Eisai. Dr. Yusuf has received honoraria and research grants from Sanofi-Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, and Astra Zeneca. Dr. Jones, Dr. Deedwania, and Dr. Fonarow had no disclosures.
