强化血压控制与空腹血糖受损患者糖尿病发病率:SPRINT的二次分析。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE International Journal of Hypertension Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2023/7533353
Beiru Lin, Xiaochuan Liu, Sichen Yao, Zhigang Pan
{"title":"强化血压控制与空腹血糖受损患者糖尿病发病率:SPRINT的二次分析。","authors":"Beiru Lin,&nbsp;Xiaochuan Liu,&nbsp;Sichen Yao,&nbsp;Zhigang Pan","doi":"10.1155/2023/7533353","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Previous studies indicated that intensive blood pressure (BP) control (systolic BP < 120 mm·Hg) compared with standard BP control (<140 mm·Hg) was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) among hypertensive patients with normoglycemia. However, the impact of intensive BP control on the incidence of T2D for those with IFG is still unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a secondary analysis of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) of the study. We included participants with IFG at randomization, which was defined as fasting blood glucose (FBG) between 100 and 125 mg/dL. The primary outcome was incident T2D, defined as events of reaching FBG ≥ 126 mg/dL, participant self-report T2D at annual examination, or a record of hypoglycemic medications at follow-up. The secondary outcome was incident IFG reversion (IFGR), defined as the time to first FBG back to normoglycemia (<100 mg/dl) among participants without incident T2D. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the cumulative incidence of outcomes between the two BP control groups. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3310 participants were included in our primary outcome analysis (median age 67 years, 29% female). There were 293 participants who developed T2D among the intensive BP control group and 256 participants who developed T2D among the standard BP control group, resulting in 56.87 (50.36-63.39) versus 49.33 (43.29-55.37) events per 1000 person-years of treatment (HR 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.40], <i>P</i>=0.052). After excluding 549 participants who developed T2D, 2761 participants were included in our secondary outcome analysis with 559 participants who developed IFGR among the intensive BP control group and 632 participants who developed IFGR among the standard BP control group, resulting in 141.20 (129.50-152.91) versus 158.20 (145.86,170.53) events per 1000 person-years of treatment (HR 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-1.01], <i>P</i>=0.067).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study found that in comparison to the standard BP control for hypertensive patients with IFG, intensive BP control was associated with a small increased risk of new-onset T2D, though it did not reach statistical significance. This kind of impact should be considered when implementing the strategy, especially for those with high risks of developing T2D. This trial is registered with NCT01206062.</p>","PeriodicalId":14132,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Hypertension","volume":"2023 ","pages":"7533353"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10036175/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intensive Blood Pressure Control and Diabetes Mellitus Incidence for Patients with Impaired Fasting Glucose: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT.\",\"authors\":\"Beiru Lin,&nbsp;Xiaochuan Liu,&nbsp;Sichen Yao,&nbsp;Zhigang Pan\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2023/7533353\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Previous studies indicated that intensive blood pressure (BP) control (systolic BP < 120 mm·Hg) compared with standard BP control (<140 mm·Hg) was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) among hypertensive patients with normoglycemia. However, the impact of intensive BP control on the incidence of T2D for those with IFG is still unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a secondary analysis of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) of the study. We included participants with IFG at randomization, which was defined as fasting blood glucose (FBG) between 100 and 125 mg/dL. The primary outcome was incident T2D, defined as events of reaching FBG ≥ 126 mg/dL, participant self-report T2D at annual examination, or a record of hypoglycemic medications at follow-up. The secondary outcome was incident IFG reversion (IFGR), defined as the time to first FBG back to normoglycemia (<100 mg/dl) among participants without incident T2D. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the cumulative incidence of outcomes between the two BP control groups. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3310 participants were included in our primary outcome analysis (median age 67 years, 29% female). There were 293 participants who developed T2D among the intensive BP control group and 256 participants who developed T2D among the standard BP control group, resulting in 56.87 (50.36-63.39) versus 49.33 (43.29-55.37) events per 1000 person-years of treatment (HR 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.40], <i>P</i>=0.052). After excluding 549 participants who developed T2D, 2761 participants were included in our secondary outcome analysis with 559 participants who developed IFGR among the intensive BP control group and 632 participants who developed IFGR among the standard BP control group, resulting in 141.20 (129.50-152.91) versus 158.20 (145.86,170.53) events per 1000 person-years of treatment (HR 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-1.01], <i>P</i>=0.067).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study found that in comparison to the standard BP control for hypertensive patients with IFG, intensive BP control was associated with a small increased risk of new-onset T2D, though it did not reach statistical significance. This kind of impact should be considered when implementing the strategy, especially for those with high risks of developing T2D. This trial is registered with NCT01206062.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14132,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Hypertension\",\"volume\":\"2023 \",\"pages\":\"7533353\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10036175/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Hypertension\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7533353\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7533353","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:先前的研究表明强化血压控制(收缩压)方法:这是对SPRINT(收缩压干预试验)研究的二次分析。我们随机纳入了IFG患者,其定义为空腹血糖(FBG)在100至125 mg/dL之间。主要结局是T2D事件,定义为达到FBG≥126 mg/dL的事件,参与者在年度检查时自我报告T2D,或随访时的降糖药物记录。次要结局是IFG逆转事件(IFGR),定义为首次FBG恢复到正常血糖的时间(结果:我们的主要结局分析共纳入了3310名参与者(中位年龄67岁,29%为女性)。强化血压对照组中有293人发生T2D,标准血压对照组中有256人发生T2D,每1000人年治疗发生56.87(50.36-63.39)例vs 49.33(43.29-55.37)例(HR 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.40], P=0.052)。在排除549例发生T2D的参与者后,我们的次要结局分析纳入了2761例参与者,其中强化血压对照组中有559例发生IFGR,标准血压对照组中有632例发生IFGR,结果每1000人年治疗发生141.20例(129.50-152.91)和158.20例(145.86 - 170.53)事件(HR 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-1.01], P=0.067)。结论:我们的研究发现,与IFG高血压患者的标准血压控制相比,强化血压控制与新发T2D的风险增加相关,但没有达到统计学意义。在实施该策略时应考虑到这种影响,特别是对于那些患T2D的高风险人群。该试验注册号为NCT01206062。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Intensive Blood Pressure Control and Diabetes Mellitus Incidence for Patients with Impaired Fasting Glucose: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT.

Background: Previous studies indicated that intensive blood pressure (BP) control (systolic BP < 120 mm·Hg) compared with standard BP control (<140 mm·Hg) was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) among hypertensive patients with normoglycemia. However, the impact of intensive BP control on the incidence of T2D for those with IFG is still unknown.

Methods: This was a secondary analysis of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) of the study. We included participants with IFG at randomization, which was defined as fasting blood glucose (FBG) between 100 and 125 mg/dL. The primary outcome was incident T2D, defined as events of reaching FBG ≥ 126 mg/dL, participant self-report T2D at annual examination, or a record of hypoglycemic medications at follow-up. The secondary outcome was incident IFG reversion (IFGR), defined as the time to first FBG back to normoglycemia (<100 mg/dl) among participants without incident T2D. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the cumulative incidence of outcomes between the two BP control groups. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results: A total of 3310 participants were included in our primary outcome analysis (median age 67 years, 29% female). There were 293 participants who developed T2D among the intensive BP control group and 256 participants who developed T2D among the standard BP control group, resulting in 56.87 (50.36-63.39) versus 49.33 (43.29-55.37) events per 1000 person-years of treatment (HR 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.40], P=0.052). After excluding 549 participants who developed T2D, 2761 participants were included in our secondary outcome analysis with 559 participants who developed IFGR among the intensive BP control group and 632 participants who developed IFGR among the standard BP control group, resulting in 141.20 (129.50-152.91) versus 158.20 (145.86,170.53) events per 1000 person-years of treatment (HR 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-1.01], P=0.067).

Conclusions: Our study found that in comparison to the standard BP control for hypertensive patients with IFG, intensive BP control was associated with a small increased risk of new-onset T2D, though it did not reach statistical significance. This kind of impact should be considered when implementing the strategy, especially for those with high risks of developing T2D. This trial is registered with NCT01206062.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Hypertension
International Journal of Hypertension Medicine-Internal Medicine
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: International Journal of Hypertension is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for clinicians and basic scientists interested in blood pressure regulation and pathophysiology, as well as treatment and prevention of hypertension. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies on the etiology and risk factors of hypertension, with a special focus on vascular biology, epidemiology, pediatric hypertension, and hypertensive nephropathy.
期刊最新文献
Effect of Hydrogen Sulfide on Sympathoinhibition in Obese Pithed Rats and Participation of K+ Channel. Identifying Who Benefits the Most from a Community Health Worker-Led Multicomponent Intervention for Hypertension. Effects of Renal Denervation on Ouabain-Induced Hypertension in Rats. Traditional Cardiovascular Risk Factors Associated with Diagonal Earlobe Crease (Frank Sign) in Mexican Adults: Aging, Obesity, Arterial Hypertension, and Being Male Are the Most Important. Effect of Yogurt Intake Frequency on Blood Pressure: A Cross-Sectional Study
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1