{"title":"在 SPRINT 试验中,在预测认知结果风险时,比较就诊时的血压变异性和在目标范围内的时间。","authors":"Isabel J Sible, Daniel A Nation","doi":"10.1177/13872877241303378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) and time in target range (TTR) are emerging vascular risk factors for dementia, independent of traditionally targeted mean BP.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Determine whether BPV or TTR is most strongly associated with cognitive risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this post hoc analysis of the SPRINT trial, 8034 participants underwent repeated BP measurement and cognitive testing at baseline and follow-up. Visit-to-visit BPV was calculated as average real variability. TTR was the percent of time in desired treatment arm target range (standard: 120-140 mmHg systolic BP; intensive: 110-130 mmHg systolic BP). Adjudicated clinical outcomes were no cognitive impairment, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and probable dementia. We investigated a direct comparison of BPV and TTR in predicting cognitive risk, stratified by BP treatment group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Elevated BPV was associated with increased risk for MCI (adjusted HR: 1.21 [95% CI 1.10, 1.33], <i>p </i>< 0.001) and MCI/dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.07, 1.27], <i>p </i>< 0.001) in the standard group, and dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.01, 1.36], <i>p </i>= 0.039) in the intensive group. Higher TTR was related to lower dementia risk (HR: 0.72 [95% CI 0.60, 0.86], <i>p </i>< 0.001) in the intensive group only.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Visit-to-visit BPV outperformed TTR in predicting risk for MCI and MCI/dementia. TTR was more strongly associated with dementia risk under intensive treatment. Findings were independent of mean BP in a cohort with rigorously controlled BP and suggest newer aspects of BP control may be harnessed to further reduce cognitive risk.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial information: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01206062.</p>","PeriodicalId":14929,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","volume":" ","pages":"13872877241303378"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of visit-to-visit blood pressure variability and time in target range in predicting risk for cognitive outcomes in the SPRINT trial.\",\"authors\":\"Isabel J Sible, Daniel A Nation\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13872877241303378\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) and time in target range (TTR) are emerging vascular risk factors for dementia, independent of traditionally targeted mean BP.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Determine whether BPV or TTR is most strongly associated with cognitive risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this post hoc analysis of the SPRINT trial, 8034 participants underwent repeated BP measurement and cognitive testing at baseline and follow-up. Visit-to-visit BPV was calculated as average real variability. TTR was the percent of time in desired treatment arm target range (standard: 120-140 mmHg systolic BP; intensive: 110-130 mmHg systolic BP). Adjudicated clinical outcomes were no cognitive impairment, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and probable dementia. We investigated a direct comparison of BPV and TTR in predicting cognitive risk, stratified by BP treatment group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Elevated BPV was associated with increased risk for MCI (adjusted HR: 1.21 [95% CI 1.10, 1.33], <i>p </i>< 0.001) and MCI/dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.07, 1.27], <i>p </i>< 0.001) in the standard group, and dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.01, 1.36], <i>p </i>= 0.039) in the intensive group. Higher TTR was related to lower dementia risk (HR: 0.72 [95% CI 0.60, 0.86], <i>p </i>< 0.001) in the intensive group only.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Visit-to-visit BPV outperformed TTR in predicting risk for MCI and MCI/dementia. TTR was more strongly associated with dementia risk under intensive treatment. Findings were independent of mean BP in a cohort with rigorously controlled BP and suggest newer aspects of BP control may be harnessed to further reduce cognitive risk.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial information: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01206062.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"13872877241303378\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877241303378\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877241303378","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of visit-to-visit blood pressure variability and time in target range in predicting risk for cognitive outcomes in the SPRINT trial.
Background: Blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) and time in target range (TTR) are emerging vascular risk factors for dementia, independent of traditionally targeted mean BP.
Objective: Determine whether BPV or TTR is most strongly associated with cognitive risk.
Methods: In this post hoc analysis of the SPRINT trial, 8034 participants underwent repeated BP measurement and cognitive testing at baseline and follow-up. Visit-to-visit BPV was calculated as average real variability. TTR was the percent of time in desired treatment arm target range (standard: 120-140 mmHg systolic BP; intensive: 110-130 mmHg systolic BP). Adjudicated clinical outcomes were no cognitive impairment, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and probable dementia. We investigated a direct comparison of BPV and TTR in predicting cognitive risk, stratified by BP treatment group.
Results: Elevated BPV was associated with increased risk for MCI (adjusted HR: 1.21 [95% CI 1.10, 1.33], p < 0.001) and MCI/dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.07, 1.27], p < 0.001) in the standard group, and dementia (HR: 1.17 [95% CI 1.01, 1.36], p = 0.039) in the intensive group. Higher TTR was related to lower dementia risk (HR: 0.72 [95% CI 0.60, 0.86], p < 0.001) in the intensive group only.
Conclusions: Visit-to-visit BPV outperformed TTR in predicting risk for MCI and MCI/dementia. TTR was more strongly associated with dementia risk under intensive treatment. Findings were independent of mean BP in a cohort with rigorously controlled BP and suggest newer aspects of BP control may be harnessed to further reduce cognitive risk.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Alzheimer''s Disease (JAD) is an international multidisciplinary journal to facilitate progress in understanding the etiology, pathogenesis, epidemiology, genetics, behavior, treatment and psychology of Alzheimer''s disease. The journal publishes research reports, reviews, short communications, hypotheses, ethics reviews, book reviews, and letters-to-the-editor. The journal is dedicated to providing an open forum for original research that will expedite our fundamental understanding of Alzheimer''s disease.