Lowering of systolic blood pressure with ESPRIT along the BPROAD: the lower the better?

IF 3.6 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Clinical Hypertension Pub Date : 2025-05-01 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.5646/ch.2025.31.e20
Reinhold Kreutz, Mattias Brunström
{"title":"Lowering of systolic blood pressure with ESPRIT along the BPROAD: the lower the better?","authors":"Reinhold Kreutz, Mattias Brunström","doi":"10.5646/ch.2025.31.e20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent studies have renewed the debate over optimal systolic blood pressure (SBP) targets in hypertensive patients, particularly those at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk and with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The Effects of Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment in Reducing Risk of Vascular Events (ESPRIT) and Blood Pressure Control Target in Diabetes (BPROAD) randomized controlled trials, both conducted in Chinese populations, offer new insights into intensive versus standard SBP-lowering strategies. ESPRIT enrolled 11,255 patients with high CV risk (including 38.7% with T2DM), while BPROAD included 12,821 hypertensive patients with T2DM and elevated CV risk. Both trials compared intensive SBP lowering (< 120 mmHg) with standard treatment (< 140 mmHg). Results from both studies showed that intensive treatment significantly reduced the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). ESPRIT reported a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.88 for MACE, along with notable reductions in CV and all-cause mortality. BPROAD similarly found a HR of 0.79 for MACE, although it did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit in all-cause mortality. However, intensive treatment in both trials was associated with higher-though relatively low-absolute rates of adverse events, including hypotension, syncope, and renal impairment. When considered alongside previous trials, our meta-analysis suggests a consistent reduction in MACE risk with intensive SBP control. Nevertheless, concerns remain regarding the safety profile and generalizability of these findings, particularly given that both ESPRIT and BPROAD were limited to ethnically Chinese cohorts and reported unusually low adverse event rates compared to Western studies. In summary, the cumulative evidence suggests that an SBP target < 140 mmHg may be suboptimal. However, whether a target < 120 mmHg is superior to the current guideline-recommended range of 120-129 mmHg remains uncertain. No trials have directly compared < 120 mmHg with < 130 mmHg. Therefore, future research should determine whether the additional benefits of more aggressive SBP lowering outweigh potential risks, especially in diverse populations with and without diabetes.</p>","PeriodicalId":10480,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Hypertension","volume":"31 ","pages":"e20"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12055493/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5646/ch.2025.31.e20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent studies have renewed the debate over optimal systolic blood pressure (SBP) targets in hypertensive patients, particularly those at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk and with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The Effects of Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment in Reducing Risk of Vascular Events (ESPRIT) and Blood Pressure Control Target in Diabetes (BPROAD) randomized controlled trials, both conducted in Chinese populations, offer new insights into intensive versus standard SBP-lowering strategies. ESPRIT enrolled 11,255 patients with high CV risk (including 38.7% with T2DM), while BPROAD included 12,821 hypertensive patients with T2DM and elevated CV risk. Both trials compared intensive SBP lowering (< 120 mmHg) with standard treatment (< 140 mmHg). Results from both studies showed that intensive treatment significantly reduced the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). ESPRIT reported a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.88 for MACE, along with notable reductions in CV and all-cause mortality. BPROAD similarly found a HR of 0.79 for MACE, although it did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit in all-cause mortality. However, intensive treatment in both trials was associated with higher-though relatively low-absolute rates of adverse events, including hypotension, syncope, and renal impairment. When considered alongside previous trials, our meta-analysis suggests a consistent reduction in MACE risk with intensive SBP control. Nevertheless, concerns remain regarding the safety profile and generalizability of these findings, particularly given that both ESPRIT and BPROAD were limited to ethnically Chinese cohorts and reported unusually low adverse event rates compared to Western studies. In summary, the cumulative evidence suggests that an SBP target < 140 mmHg may be suboptimal. However, whether a target < 120 mmHg is superior to the current guideline-recommended range of 120-129 mmHg remains uncertain. No trials have directly compared < 120 mmHg with < 130 mmHg. Therefore, future research should determine whether the additional benefits of more aggressive SBP lowering outweigh potential risks, especially in diverse populations with and without diabetes.

ESPRIT沿BPROAD降低收缩压:越低越好?
最近的研究重新引发了关于高血压患者的最佳收缩压(SBP)目标的争论,特别是那些心血管(CV)风险增加和2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者。强化降压治疗在降低血管事件风险(ESPRIT)和糖尿病血压控制目标(BPROAD)随机对照试验中的作用,均在中国人群中进行,为强化降压与标准降压策略的对比提供了新的见解。ESPRIT纳入了11255例CV高风险患者(其中38.7%为T2DM),而BPROAD纳入了12821例T2DM合并CV高风险的高血压患者。两项试验都比较了强化降压(< 120 mmHg)和标准治疗(< 140 mmHg)。两项研究的结果都表明,强化治疗显著降低了主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的发生率。ESPRIT报告MACE的风险比(HR)为0.88,CV和全因死亡率显著降低。BPROAD同样发现MACE的HR为0.79,尽管在全因死亡率方面没有统计学上显著的益处。然而,在两项试验中,强化治疗与包括低血压、晕厥和肾功能损害在内的较高(尽管相对较低)绝对不良事件发生率相关。与之前的试验相比,我们的荟萃分析表明,强化收缩压控制可以持续降低MACE风险。然而,对这些研究结果的安全性和普遍性的担忧仍然存在,特别是考虑到ESPRIT和BPROAD都局限于华裔队列,与西方研究相比,报告的不良事件发生率异常低。总之,累积的证据表明收缩压目标< 140 mmHg可能是次优的。然而,< 120 mmHg的目标是否优于目前指南推荐的120-129 mmHg的范围仍不确定。没有试验直接比较< 120 mmHg和< 130 mmHg。因此,未来的研究应该确定更积极的降低收缩压的额外益处是否大于潜在风险,特别是在有和没有糖尿病的不同人群中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Hypertension
Clinical Hypertension PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
4.80%
发文量
34
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信