Effect of more versus less intensive blood pressure control on cardiovascular, renal and mortality outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes A systematic review and meta-analysis
Background and Aims
Currently, there is uncertainty as to whether blood pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes should be treated to standard recommended levels or more intensively.
Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched between January 1, 2000 and April 20th, 2023. Outcomes considered were all-cause mortality, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, albuminuria, coronary heart disease, and renal outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated pooled relative risks and mean differences.
Nine trials enrolling 11,005 participants with type 2 diabetes were included. The pooled mean difference between the intensive and standard treatment groups at follow-up were −7.98 mmHg (95% CI: 12.19 to −3.76) in systolic blood pressure, and −5.08 mmHg (−7.00 to −3.17) in diastolic blood pressure; although between study heterogeneity was high for both meta-analyses (I2>85%). Intensive blood pressure lowering resulted in a reduction in risk of stroke (risk ratio 0.64; 0.52 to 0.79), and macro-albuminuria (0.77; 0.63 to 0.93). More intensive blood pressure control did not result in a statistically significant reduction in risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure, cardiovascular death, cardiovascular events, renal outcomes, and micro-albuminuria; although the direction of estimated effect was beneficial for all outcomes.
The use of intensive compared with standard blood pressure targets resulted in a significant reduction in blood pressure, stroke, and macro-albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes. The post-treatment blood pressure level in the intensive group was 125/73 mmHg, suggesting the current recommendations of 130/80 mmHg blood pressure or lower if tolerated, could be reduced further.
This study was supported/funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands (ARC EM) and Leicester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC)
Author affiliationLeicester Real World Evidence Unit, Leicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester
- VoR (Version of Record)