[acb-diabetics] drugs lower BP not helpful fo many diabetics

[Patricia LaFrance-Wolf]

Bookmark and Share  

| 

Print | 

Category | 

Home 

Previous | 

Next 

This article originally posted 23 March, 2010 and appeared in  

Issue 514

 

Tight Blood Pressure Control Not Supported in Patients with Diabetes and
Coronary Artery Disease

 

Current blood pressure (BP) guidelines for individuals with diabetes
(systolic BP [SBP] <130 mm Hg) based on the notion that lower is better were
not supported

by results of the International Verapamil SR-Trandolapril (INVEST) study.

 

Advertisement 

 

Click here to find out more! frame

 

Flash movie start

Flash movie end

Click here to find out more! frame end

 

The INVEST findings revealed, in fact, a BP threshold below which patients
with both diabetes and coronary artery disease have increased cardiovascular

risk, said Rhonda M. Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.

 

Given the lack of evidence supporting SBP of <130 mm Hg, especially in
diabetic patients, INVEST was conducted with an intent to determine the
effect of

SBP reduction on adverse cardiovascular outcomes in a cohort of 6,400
patients (mean age ~66 years) with diabetes and coronary artery disease.

 

The study tested the hypothesis that diabetic individuals who achieved SBP
levels less than 130 mm Hg would have reduced cardiovascular outcomes
compared

with those achieving levels between >  =130 and <140 mm Hg.

 

Patients were randomised to BP-lowering therapy based on either a
calcium-channel blocker or a beta blocker plus an angiotensin-converting
enzyme inhibitor

and/or a thiazide diuretic. The target was a BP of <130 mm Hg/<85 mm Hg.

 

For the analysis, patients were categorised according to the degree of BP
control actually achieved: SBPs of >=140 mm Hg (not controlled), between
>=130

mm Hg but <140 mm Hg (usual control), and <130 mm Hg (tight control). SBP
control levels were distributed evenly with about one-third of patients
falling

into each of the groups.

 

The primary outcome was first occurrence of all-cause mortality, nonfatal
myocardial infarction (MI), or nonfatal stroke.

 

During a mean follow-up of 2.7 years, combined death, MI, and stroke risk
was not different between the tight-control and usual-control groups (12.7%
vs

12.6%). Similarly, nonfatal MI (1.3% vs 1.7%), and nonfatal stroke (1.0% vs
1.3%) were similar for the 2 groups.

 

All-cause mortality was higher in the tight-control group (11.0%) than in
the usual-control group (10.2%).

 

Extended follow-up out to >=5 years of the US cohort (n = 5,077) revealed a
strong trend (P = .058) toward higher mortality for tight control than for

usual control. After adjustment for baseline variables, the excess mortality
hazard for tight control was 15%. The excess hazard in the US cohort was in

patients with SBP <115 mm Hg, Dr. Cooper-DeHoff said.

 

"We concluded that in individuals with diabetes and documented coronary
artery disease, systolic blood pressures <130 mm Hg are not beneficial, and
we

can probably rethink lower goals in this population." She added, "Efforts
can be put toward lifestyle modification, where we know we can achieve
benefit."

 

Results were reported at the 59th Annual Scientific Sessions of the American
College of Cardiology (ACC) during a Late-Breaking clinical trial
presentation.

 [Presentation title: Rethinking Lower Blood Pressure Goals for Diabetic
Patients With Coronary Artery Disease -- Findings From the International
Verapamil

SR - Trandolapril Study (INVEST). Late-Breaking Clinical Trials I]  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.acb.org/pipermail/acb-diabetics/attachments/20100406/9919c52d/attachment.htm>