[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure 1.
PRISMA Diagram of Selection of Studies for Meta-analysis
PRISMA Diagram of Selection of Studies for Meta-analysis

BP indicates blood pressure; CKD, chronic kidney disease; and PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Figure 2.
Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure (BP) Lowering on Risk of Mortality in Hypertensive Trial Participants With Chronic Kidney Disease
Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure (BP) Lowering on Risk of Mortality in Hypertensive Trial Participants With Chronic Kidney Disease

In the 18 included trials,13,14,17,22-36 there were 584 deaths among 7451 participants in the more intensive BP arm and 709 deaths among 8473 participants in the less intensive BP arm during the trial phase. The trial by Howard et al31 had no mortality outcomes in both BP arms (more intensive vs less intensive) and was dropped from the analysis.

Figure 3.
Studies Evaluating Intensive Blood Pressure Control Relative to Mortality Among Persons With Chronic Kidney Disease
Studies Evaluating Intensive Blood Pressure Control Relative to Mortality Among Persons With Chronic Kidney Disease

A symmetrical inverted funnel implies no publication bias. Each open circle represents an individual published study.

Figure 4.
Effect of More Intensive Blood Pressure (BP) Lowering on Risk of Mortality in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Stratified by Subgroups
Effect of More Intensive Blood Pressure (BP) Lowering on Risk of Mortality in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Stratified by Subgroups

Shown are the results among adults with estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Among the 18 trials, only 12 included individuals with diabetes. BP indicates blood pressure; SBP, systolic blood pressure.

1.
Perico  N, Remuzzi  G.  Chronic kidney disease: a research and public health priority.  Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(suppl 3):iii19-iii26.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Murphy  D, McCulloch  CE, Lin  F,  et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Chronic Kidney Disease Surveillance Team.  Trends in prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the United States.  Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(7):473-481.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Woo  KT, Choong  HL, Wong  KS, Tan  HB, Chan  CM.  The contribution of chronic kidney disease to the global burden of major noncommunicable diseases.  Kidney Int. 2012;81(10):1044-1045.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Rapsomaniki  E, Timmis  A, George  J,  et al.  Blood pressure and incidence of twelve cardiovascular diseases: lifetime risks, healthy life-years lost, and age-specific associations in 1.25 million people.  Lancet. 2014;383(9932):1899-1911.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Lewington  S, Clarke  R, Qizilbash  N, Peto  R, Collins  R; Prospective Studies Collaboration.  Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies.  Lancet. 2002;360(9349):1903-1913.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Lewis  JB.  Blood pressure control in chronic kidney disease: is less really more?  J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;21(7):1086-1092.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Taler  SJ, Agarwal  R, Bakris  GL,  et al.  KDOQI US commentary on the 2012 KDIGO clinical practice guideline for management of blood pressure in CKD.  Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;62(2):201-213.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Verbeke  F, Lindley  E, Van Bortel  L,  et al.  A European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) position statement on the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure in non–dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease: an endorsement with some caveats for real-life application.  Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014;29(3):490-496.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Anderson  AH, Yang  W, Townsend  RR,  et al; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study Investigators.  Time-updated systolic blood pressure and the progression of chronic kidney disease: a cohort study.  Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(4):258-265.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Townsend  RR.  Blood pressure targets in CKD.  Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2015;22(2):96-101.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Kovesdy  CP, Bleyer  AJ, Molnar  MZ,  et al.  Blood pressure and mortality in U.S. veterans with chronic kidney disease: a cohort study.  Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(4):233-242.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Kovesdy  CP, Lu  JL, Molnar  MZ,  et al.  Observational modeling of strict vs conventional blood pressure control in patients with chronic kidney disease.  JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(9):1442-1449.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Klahr  S, Levey  AS, Beck  GJ,  et al; Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group.  The effects of dietary protein restriction and blood-pressure control on the progression of chronic renal disease.  N Engl J Med. 1994;330(13):877-884.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Wright  JT  Jr, Bakris  G, Greene  T,  et al; African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension Study Group.  Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK trial [published correction appears in JAMA. 2006;295(23):2726].  JAMA. 2002;288(19):2421-2431.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
James  PA, Oparil  S, Carter  BL,  et al.  2014 Evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8).  JAMA. 2014;311(5):507-520.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Mancia  G, Fagard  R, Narkiewicz  K,  et al; Task Force Members.  2013 ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).  J Hypertens. 2013;31(7):1281-1357.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Wright  JT  Jr, Williamson  JD, Whelton  PK,  et al; SPRINT Research Group.  A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control.  N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2103-2116.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
DerSimonian  R, Laird  N.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited.  Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;45(pt A):139-145.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Moher  D, Shamseer  L, Clarke  M,  et al; PRISMA-P Group.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.  Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Schulz  KF, Chalmers  I, Hayes  RJ, Altman  DG.  Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.  JAMA. 1995;273(5):408-412.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Lv  J, Ehteshami  P, Sarnak  MJ,  et al.  Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on the progression of chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  CMAJ. 2013;185(11):949-957.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Ruggenenti  P, Perna  A, Loriga  G,  et al; REIN-2 Study Group.  Blood-pressure control for renoprotection in patients with non-diabetic chronic renal disease (REIN-2): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.  Lancet. 2005;365(9463):939-946.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Toto  RD, Mitchell  HC, Smith  RD, Lee  HC, McIntire  D, Pettinger  WA.  “Strict” blood pressure control and progression of renal disease in hypertensive nephrosclerosis.  Kidney Int. 1995;48(3):851-859.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Estacio  RO, Jeffers  BW, Gifford  N, Schrier  RW.  Effect of blood pressure control on diabetic microvascular complications in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.  Diabetes Care. 2000;23(suppl 2):B54-B64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Schrier  R, McFann  K, Johnson  A,  et al.  Cardiac and renal effects of standard versus rigorous blood pressure control in autosomal-dominant polycystic kidney disease: results of a seven-year prospective randomized study.  J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002;13(7):1733-1739.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Schrier  RW, Estacio  RO, Esler  A, Mehler  P.  Effects of aggressive blood pressure control in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients on albuminuria, retinopathy and strokes.  Kidney Int. 2002;61(3):1086-1097.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Heerspink  HJ, Ninomiya  T, Perkovic  V,  et al; ADVANCE Collaborative Group.  Effects of a fixed combination of perindopril and indapamide in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.  Eur Heart J. 2010;31(23):2888-2896.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
SHEP Cooperative Research Group.  Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP).  JAMA. 1991;265(24):3255-3264.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Staessen  JA, Fagard  R, Thijs  L,  et al; Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators.  Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension.  Lancet. 1997;350(9080):757-764.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Beckett  NS, Peters  R, Fletcher  AE,  et al; HYVET Study Group.  Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older.  N Engl J Med. 2008;358(18):1887-1898.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Howard  BV, Roman  MJ, Devereux  RB,  et al.  Effect of lower targets for blood pressure and LDL cholesterol on atherosclerosis in diabetes: the SANDS randomized trial.  JAMA. 2008;299(14):1678-1689.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Cushman  WC, Evans  GW, Byington  RP,  et al; ACCORD Study Group.  Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.  N Engl J Med. 2010;362(17):1575-1585.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Benavente  OR, Coffey  CS, Conwit  R,  et al; SPS3 Study Group.  Blood-pressure targets in patients with recent lacunar stroke: the SPS3 randomised trial.  Lancet. 2013;382(9891):507-515.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Mant  J, McManus  RJ, Roalfe  A,  et al.  Different systolic blood pressure targets for people with history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack: PAST-BP (Prevention After Stroke–Blood Pressure) randomised controlled trial.  BMJ. 2016;352:i708.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group.  Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38.  BMJ. 1998;317(7160):703-713.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Hansson  L, Zanchetti  A, Carruthers  SG,  et al; HOT Study Group.  Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial.  Lancet. 1998;351(9118):1755-1762.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Lonn  EM, Bosch  J, López-Jaramillo  P,  et al; HOPE-3 Investigators.  Blood-pressure lowering in intermediate-risk persons without cardiovascular disease.  N Engl J Med. 2016;374(21):2009-2020.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Wei  Y, Jin  Z, Shen  G,  et al.  Effects of intensive antihypertensive treatment on Chinese hypertensive patients older than 70 years.  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2013;15(6):420-427.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Asayama  K, Ohkubo  T, Metoki  H,  et al; Hypertension Objective Treatment Based on Measurement by Electrical Devices of Blood Pressure (HOMED-BP).  Cardiovascular outcomes in the first trial of antihypertensive therapy guided by self-measured home blood pressure.  Hypertens Res. 2012;35(11):1102-1110.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Ogihara  T, Saruta  T, Rakugi  H,  et al; Valsartan in Elderly Isolated Systolic Hypertension Study Group.  Target blood pressure for treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly: Valsartan in Elderly Isolated Systolic Hypertension Study.  Hypertension. 2010;56(2):196-202.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Verdecchia  P, Staessen  JA, Angeli  F,  et al; Cardio-Sis Investigators.  Usual versus tight control of systolic blood pressure in non-diabetic patients with hypertension (Cardio-Sis): an open-label randomised trial  [published correction appears  in Lancet. 2009;374(9693):880].  Lancet. 2009;374(9689):525-533.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
JATOS Study Group.  Principal results of the Japanese Trial to Assess Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure in Elderly Hypertensive Patients (JATOS).  Hypertens Res. 2008;31(12):2115-2127.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Liu  L, Zhang  Y, Liu  G, Li  W, Zhang  X, Zanchetti  A; FEVER Study Group.  The Felodipine Event Reduction (FEVER) Study: a randomized long-term placebo-controlled trial in Chinese hypertensive patients.  J Hypertens. 2005;23(12):2157-2172.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Hansson  L, Lithell  H, Skoog  I,  et al.  Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE).  Blood Press. 1999;8(3):177-183.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Liu  L, Wang  JG, Gong  L, Liu  G, Staessen  JA; Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China) Collaborative Group.  Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension.  J Hypertens. 1998;16(12, pt 1):1823-1829.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
MRC Working Party.  Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results.  BMJ. 1992;304(6824):405-412.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Dahlöf  B, Lindholm  LH, Hansson  L, Scherstén  B, Ekbom  T, Wester  PO.  Morbidity and mortality in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension (STOP-Hypertension).  Lancet. 1991;338(8778):1281-1285.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Amery  A, Birkenhäger  W, Brixko  P,  et al.  Mortality and morbidity results from the European Working Party on High Blood Pressure in the Elderly trial.  Lancet. 1985;1(8442):1349-1354.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Ninomiya  T, Perkovic  V, Turnbull  F,  et al; Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.  Blood pressure lowering and major cardiovascular events in people with and without chronic kidney disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.  BMJ. 2013;347:f5680.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Peralta  CA, McClure  LA, Scherzer  R,  et al.  Effect of intensive versus usual blood pressure control on kidney function among individuals with prior lacunar stroke: a post hoc analysis of the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) randomized trial.  Circulation. 2016;133(6):584-591.PubMedGoogle Scholar
51.
Ku  E, Bakris  G, Johansen  KL,  et al.  Acute declines in renal function during intensive BP lowering: implications for future ESRD risk [published online May 4, 2017].  J Am Soc Nephrol. doi:10.1681/ASN.2017010040PubMedGoogle Scholar
52.
Thomopoulos  C, Parati  G, Zanchetti  A.  Effects of blood pressure lowering on outcome incidence in hypertension, 1: overview, meta-analyses, and meta-regression analyses of randomized trials.  J Hypertens. 2014;32(12):2285-2295.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Thomopoulos  C, Parati  G, Zanchetti  A.  Effects of blood pressure lowering treatment in hypertension, 8: outcome reductions vs. discontinuations because of adverse drug events: meta-analyses of randomized trials.  J Hypertens. 2016;34(8):1451-1463.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Kidney Disease; Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Blood Pressure Work Group.  KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure in chronic kidney disease.  Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2:337-414.Google ScholarCrossref
55.
Appel  LJ, Wright  JT  Jr, Greene  T,  et al; AASK Collaborative Research Group.  Intensive blood-pressure control in hypertensive chronic kidney disease.  N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):918-929.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Sarnak  MJ, Greene  T, Wang  X,  et al.  The effect of a lower target blood pressure on the progression of kidney disease: long-term follow-up of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study.  Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(5):342-351.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
October 2017

Association Between More Intensive vs Less Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering and Risk of Mortality in Chronic Kidney Disease Stages 3 to 5: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla
  • 2Imperial Valley Family Care Medical Group, El Centro, California
  • 3Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
  • 4Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland
  • 5Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Hyattsville, Maryland
  • 6Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England
  • 7School of Biological and Population Health Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis
  • 8Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
  • 9Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
  • 10Medical Service, Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Healthcare System, Salt Lake City, Utah
  • 11Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
  • 12Diabetes Trials Unit, Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, England
  • 13Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Center of Clinical Physiology and Hypertension, Università Degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
  • 14School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, England
  • 15Care of the Elderly, Imperial College London, London, England
  • 16Research Unit Hypertension and Cardiovascular Epidemiology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  • 17Research and Development Group VitaK, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
  • 18Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla
  • 19Nephrology Section, Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, La Jolla, California
JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(10):1498-1505. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.4377
Key Points

Question  Does intensive blood pressure lowering decrease the risk of mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease?

Findings  In this meta-analysis of 18 randomized clinical trials comprising 15 924 patients with chronic kidney disease, more intensive blood pressure lowering was associated with significantly lower risk of mortality compared with less intensive blood pressure control.

Meaning  Targeting more intensive blood pressure lowering may provide a mortality benefit in persons with chronic kidney disease.

Abstract

Importance  Trials in patients with hypertension have demonstrated that intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality but may increase the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) incidence and progression. Whether intensive BP lowering is associated with a mortality benefit in patients with prevalent CKD remains unknown.

Objectives  To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to investigate if more intensive compared with less intensive BP control is associated with reduced mortality risk in persons with CKD stages 3 to 5.

Data Sources  Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Science Citation Index, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov electronic databases.

Study Selection  All RCTs were included that compared 2 defined BP targets (either active BP treatment vs placebo or no treatment, or intensive vs less intensive BP control) and enrolled adults (≥18 years) with CKD stages 3 to 5 (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) exclusively or that included a CKD subgroup between January 1, 1950, and June 1, 2016.

Data Extraction and Synthesis  Two of us independently evaluated study quality and extracted characteristics and mortality events among persons with CKD within the intervention phase for each trial. When outcomes within the CKD group had not previously been published, trial investigators were contacted to request data within the CKD subset of their original trials.

Main Outcome and Measure  All-cause mortality during the active treatment phase of each trial.

Results  This study identified 30 RCTs that potentially met the inclusion criteria. The CKD subset mortality data were extracted in 18 trials, among which there were 1293 deaths in 15 924 participants with CKD. The mean (SD) baseline systolic BP (SBP) was 148 (16) mm Hg in both the more intensive and less intensive arms. The mean SBP dropped by 16 mm Hg to 132 mm Hg in the more intensive arm and by 8 mm Hg to 140 mm Hg in the less intensive arm. More intensive vs less intensive BP control resulted in 14.0% lower risk of all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97; P = .01), a finding that was without significant heterogeneity and appeared consistent across multiple subgroups.

Conclusions and Relevance  Randomization to more intensive BP control is associated with lower mortality risk among trial participants with hypertension and CKD. Further studies are required to define absolute BP targets for maximal benefit and minimal harm.

Introduction

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public health problem, estimated to affect 26 million Americans and 200 million individuals worldwide.1,2 Persons with CKD are at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and all-cause mortality.3 Hypertension is a well-known risk factor for CVD; therefore, optimal blood pressure (BP) control is a major clinical and public health priority.4,5 Over the past decade, several studies and clinical practice guidelines6-10 have addressed the optimal BP target in CKD populations, yet consensus remains elusive. Observational data have demonstrated U-shaped relationships between BP and mortality risk among those with CKD.11,12 Clinical trials testing different BP targets in CKD populations, including the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD)13 and the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK),14 failed to demonstrate benefits of BP lowering for slowing down CKD progression and were underpowered to address CVD and mortality.

The current Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)7 BP guidelines recommend a BP goal less than 130/80 mm Hg for individuals with CKD and moderate to severe albuminuria and less than 140/90 mm Hg for those with CKD and albuminuria less than 30 mg/g. The Eighth Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 8)15 and the 2013 European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology Task Force16 affirmed the BP target of less than 140/90 mm Hg for individuals with CKD and made no distinction based on the albuminuria level. These guidelines were published before the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)17 was completed. SPRINT enrolled hypertensive individuals without diabetes and with high CVD risk and found a substantially lower CVD risk and lower all-cause mortality risk in participants treated to a systolic BP (SBP) target less than 120 mm Hg compared with less than 140 mm Hg, although they found a significant excess of acute kidney injury (AKI). Patients with CKD (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] of 20-59 mL/min/1.73 m2) accounted for approximately 30% of the SPRINT participants, and the results were similar (no statistically significant interactions) among those with CKD compared with their non-CKD counterparts. However, the trial was not specifically powered to define the risks and benefits of intensive BP control for those with CKD.

The different definitions and differential reporting of AKI, CKD progression, and CVD events from previous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) represent a major challenge to comprehensively address these end points in a meta-analysis. In contrast, mortality is similarly defined across studies and is virtually always reported because it is an important safety signal. Mortality also provides a summary estimate of the net benefits and harms of the intervention. Therefore, our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to investigate if more intensive compared with less intensive BP control is associated with reduced mortality risk in persons with CKD stages 3 to 5.

Methods
Electronic Searches

Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Science Citation Index, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov electronic database searches were completed from January 1, 1950, to June 1, 2016, with the following keywords: randomized controlled trials, intensive blood pressure treatment, intensive blood pressure control, strict blood pressure treatment, strict blood pressure control, tight blood pressure treatment, or tight blood pressure control.18 The clinicaltrials.gov website was searched for randomized trials that were registered as completed but not yet published. The reference articles from each identified trial were reviewed to identify any additional relevant studies. No language restrictions were applied. The literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)19 statement recommendations (eTable 1 in the Supplement).

Selection of Studies

Study eligibility was individually determined independently by 2 of us (R.M. and H.A.N.). Eligible for inclusion were both open-label and double-blinded RCTs that had adult participants (≥18 years) with CKD stages 3 to 5, which was defined as an eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 by either the MDRD or Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equations and had randomized participants to 2 defined BP targets (either active BP treatment vs placebo or no treatment, or more intensive vs less intensive BP control). In some instances, identified trials included persons with CKD, but the trials had not previously published mortality events within the CKD subset. In such cases, we contacted the study investigators and requested data on the number of patients with CKD enrolled in the trial, the number in each treatment arm, and the number of deaths that occurred during the active trial phase. Studies among dialysis patients were excluded.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Demographics, comorbid characteristics, enrollment criteria, BP control targets in each arm, mean reductions in SBP and diastolic BP, and mortality events were extracted onto standardized extraction forms. Extracted data were then verified by another one of us (H.A.N.). For any discrepancies, two of us (R.M. and H.A.N.) met and conferred, and consensus was reached. The quality and clinical generalizability of each study were assessed according to the methods based on allocation concealment, masking (of participants, investigators, and assessors), intent-to-treat analysis, percentage withdrawals, and whether withdrawals were adequately described.20

Outcome Measures

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The mortality data were obtained during the active treatment phase of each trial. The mortality events that occurred during extended follow-up after the active phase of each trial were not included.

Statistical Analysis

Mortality outcomes in each randomized BP group were pooled, and weighted odds ratios (ORs) comparing the lower BP arm (intensive BP) with individuals randomized to higher BP targets (less intensive or placebo) and their 95% CIs were calculated using both random-effects and fixed-effects models. The influence of individual trials on the pooled effect size was assessed, and a trial was considered to have an excessive influence if, after its exclusion, the point estimate of the remaining trials was outside the 95% CI of the overall risk estimate. Heterogeneity was assessed based on I2 test (I2 of 0%-25% indicates no or mild heterogeneity, 25%-50% indicates moderate heterogeneity, 50%-75% indicates large heterogeneity, and 75%-100% indicates extreme heterogeneity).20 Subgroup analyses were performed stratified by type of study (drug vs placebo vs 2 defined BP target arms), study trial duration, inclusion of diabetic patients (yes or no), baseline SBP, level of achieved SBP during the trial phase, and SBP difference between the 2 randomized arms. Meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the association between SBP differences during the trial phase and mortality risk while adjusting for baseline SBP. Potential publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Two-sided P < .05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses, including tests for heterogeneity. All statistical analyses were performed using a software program (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, version 2.2.064; Biostat Inc).

Results
Literature Search

The initial search of Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Science Citation Index, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov electronic databases between January 1, 1950, and June 1, 2016, provided 4416 citations. We reviewed abstracts and limited this search to a more detailed review of 407 abstracts of studies potentially eligible for inclusion as described in the Methods section. In subsequent review, 377 studies were excluded because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria. The remaining 30 studies were reviewed in full text and identified for meta-analysis (Figure 1). Data elements from 9 trials13,14,17,21-27 were extracted from the publications. One citation is a previous meta-analysis,21 which was also used to abstract data. We contacted trial investigators for the remaining trials, and the authors of 9 studies28-36 provided data on the number of participants with CKD and deaths during the trial phase for the 2 BP arms for the purpose of inclusion in this meta-analysis. We were unable to obtain mortality data in the CKD subset from the investigators for the remaining 12 trials.37-48 Therefore, 18 RCTs involving 15 924 participants with CKD and complete data were included in the meta-analysis (Figure 1).

Study Characteristics

eTable 1 in the Supplement summarizes the main characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis. All trials were of good quality. Each used a parallel treatment group design, and 15 trials reported adequate methods for random allocation and concealment of treatment assignment (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Six trials13,22,26-28,35 had excluded patients with type 1 diabetes, whereas 3 trials14,17,23 had excluded patients with all forms of diabetes. Thirteen trials13,14,17,22-25,31-36 among the 18 had 2 defined BP targets, and the remaining 5 trials26-30 evaluated a BP-lowering intervention vs no treatment or a placebo arm. One trial36 had 3 defined BP targets. For the purpose of this meta-analysis, the lowest BP target group was compared with the other 2 groups together. The BP targets varied across trials (eTable 1 in the Supplement). The mean (SD) baseline SBP was 148 (16) mm Hg in both the intensive and less intensive arms. The mean SBP decreased by 16 mm Hg to 132 mm Hg in the more intensive arms and by 8 mm Hg to 140 mm Hg in the less intensive arms. The median follow-up period was 3.6 years (interquartile range [IQR], 2.8-4.9 years). The median difference in SBP achieved across arms13,14,17,22-36 was 10 mm Hg (IQR, 4-12 mm Hg), with a median of 130 mm Hg (IQR, 125-141 mm Hg) in the more intensive arms vs 138 mm Hg (IQR, 134-146 mm Hg) in the less intensive arms. The renal inclusion and exclusion criteria varied across trials and are summarized in eTable 1 in the Supplement.

BP Control and Risk of Mortality

Figure 2 shows the main results of the meta-analysis. In the 18 included trials, there were 584 deaths among 7451 participants (7.8%) in the more intensive BP arm and 709 deaths among 8473 participants (8.4%) in the less intensive BP arm during the trial phase. Using the random-effects model, the OR for death among participants with CKD randomized to the more intensive BP-lowering arm was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.76-0.97; P = .01) compared with the less intensive BP arm. The results were similar with the fixed-effects model. None of the individual trials had an excessive influence on the pooled effect size. There was no evidence of heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 0%, P for heterogeneity = .77). Funnel plot analysis revealed no evidence of publication bias based on visual inspection (Figure 3) or by performing Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation (P = .23) and Egger regression (P = .08) tests. Because we knew a priori that SPRINT had found that intensive BP control improved mortality and provided substantial statistical power to this meta-analysis, we specifically evaluated the remaining trials with the exclusion of SPRINT in a sensitivity analysis. The results were similar in this analysis (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99; P = .05).

Subgroup Analysis

The observed effect of those randomized to the more intensive BP arm on mortality was consistent irrespective of the following: type of treatment in the comparator arm (placebo or less intensive BP target), median follow-up duration (<3 vs ≥3 years), inclusion of diabetic patients (yes or no), CKD severity (serum creatinine level <2.0 mg/dL or creatinine clearance >30 mL/min/1.73 m2 vs serum creatinine level ≥2.0 mg/dL or creatinine clearance ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m2), baseline SBP of the entire cohort (<140 mm Hg vs 140-160 mm Hg vs >160 mm Hg), or achieved SBP in the more intensive lowering group (SBP<125 mm Hg vs SBP 125-135 mm Hg vs SBP>135 mm Hg) (Figure 4). (To convert creatinine level to micromoles per liter, multiply by 88.4; creatinine clearance to milliliters per second per meter squared, multiply by 0.0167.) In the trials that achieved a difference in SBP of at least 12 mm Hg, the OR of death in the more intensive vs less intensive arms was 0.76, trials with differences exceeding 6 but less than 12 mm Hg had an OR of 0.97, and those with differences of 6 mm Hg or less had an OR of 1.06; formal testing for heterogeneity resulted in a P value of .06. Meta-regression adjusting for baseline SBP level showed a similar pattern suggesting greater mortality benefit in trials with higher differences in achieved BP across treatment arms, although this finding did not reach statistical significance (slope of log OR per mm Hg difference in SBP, −0.0201; 95% CI, −0.0499 to 0.0097; P = .19) (eFigure in the Supplement).

Discussion

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 RCTs among 15 924 participants with both hypertension and an eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 randomized to more intensive vs less intensive BP lowering, those randomized to more intensive BP lowering had 14.0% lower risk of all-cause mortality. We observed a suggestion of a mortality benefit in studies that achieved the greatest difference in SBP between the 2 treatment arms (P = .06). These findings add to the body of evidence that may inform public health policy, clinical guideline development, and individual patient care in patients with CKD.

A prior meta-analysis49 found beneficial effects in persons randomized to more intensive BP lowering on CVD events among patients with CKD (26 trials among 30 295 participants; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.90). Cardiovascular disease events are important and are the major cause of death in those with CKD. However, we evaluated all-cause mortality because it balances the competing risk of multiple clinical outcomes and because it is a “hard” outcome assessed similarly across studies. For example, if more intensive BP lowering leads to higher risk of AKI and CKD progression but lower risk of CVD events, these outcomes could offset one another, with no overall effect on all-cause mortality. This consideration is particularly important in persons who have CKD at baseline. Less residual kidney function may make participants with CKD particularly vulnerable to additional insults, resulting in loss of kidney function, as has been reported in clinical trials17,50 evaluating intensive BP control. While more intensive BP control appears to acutely lower eGFR, the significance of this finding in patients with CKD remains uncertain. A recent study51 among AASK and MDRD trial participants showed that a 5% to less than 20% acute decline in the eGFR in the intensive BP arm was not associated with higher risk of ESRD (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.19; 95% CI, 0.84-1.68 in the AASK and 1.08; 95% CI, 0.84-1.40 in the MDRD). However, a similar change in the less intensive arm was associated with ESRD (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.30-2.57 in the AASK and 1.62; 95% CI, 1.25-2.11 in the MDRD). Therefore, the results of our meta-analysis suggest that more intensive BP control may provide more benefit than harm in persons with CKD.

Approximately 30% of the SPRINT participants had CKD at baseline.17 The primary end point of SPRINT was a composite CVD end point. While the P value for interaction for the primary CVD end point comparing those with and without CKD was not statistically significant (P = .36), the effect estimate was smaller and did not reach statistical significance in the CKD subgroup for the primary CVD end point (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63-1.07). Moreover, intensive BP control resulted in higher risk of a 30% decline in the eGFR among those without CKD, as well as more rapid loss of the eGFR, and greater AKI events in the SPRINT participants both with and without CKD at baseline. In SPRINT, those with CKD randomized to the intensive BP-lowering arm had a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98; P = .04). However, the total number of deaths in the SPRINT CKD subgroup was low (70 deaths among 1330 individuals in the intensive BP group vs 95 deaths among 1336 individuals in the standard treatment group), and the trial excluded persons with diabetes, proteinuria greater than 1000 mg/g, and prior stroke. It was unknown whether the results generalize to other subsets and whether the mortality benefit observed in the SPRINT participants with CKD was reproducible. The present meta-analysis extends these findings and provides additional assurance in a larger study sample and across different settings. Overall, we found little heterogeneity across studies and a similar mortality benefit in persons treated with more intensive BP lowering.

The highest mortality benefit was observed in studies that achieved the greatest difference in SBP during the trial, a result that did not reach statistical significance (P = .06 for heterogeneity).These data will need to be reevaluated when additional trials evaluating intensive BP control among those with CKD are completed. Nonetheless, this preliminary finding supports our overall conclusion that more intensive BP control may be beneficial for individuals with CKD. The size of the mortality reduction in patients with CKD (14%) is similar to the percentages (9% and 11%) calculated in recent meta-analyses52,53 of all BP-lowering trials, and this result suggests that the benefits of BP lowering on all-cause mortality do not differ substantially in the presence or absence of CKD.

The findings of this meta-analysis may have implications to both clinical practice and public health policy. Relative to public policy, the KDIGO Blood Pressure Work Group54 announced that they have convened a panel of experts to review evidence and potentially modify their guideline recommendations regarding appropriate BP targets in patients with CKD. The present meta-analysis may provide useful data for the upcoming guideline review. Our results may also offer additional information for patients and health care professionals and may be useful to guide shared decision making about the relative risks and benefits of BP lowering among those with CKD.

Strengths and Limitations

This study has several strengths. First, multiple high-quality, methodologically rigorous randomized trials had not previously reported differences in death rates across treatment arms in persons with prevalent CKD. Among the 18 trials included in this meta-analysis, investigators from 9 trials reevaluated their data within the CKD subset and provided data specifically to support this study. Therefore, our meta-analysis provides a substantial new evidence base about the risks and benefits of intensive BP lowering in populations with CKD. Second, we assessed mortality as a hard clinical outcome, which has obvious clinical importance, is similarly ascertained across studies, and is thus largely free of bias. Third, we restricted our analysis to outcomes that were assessed during the trial phase of each study only and excluded events that occurred during long-term follow-up. While there is important information obtained in such follow-up,55,56 BP control often approached similar levels across treatment arms after the trial phase.55

Our study also has important limitations. First, despite considerable efforts to contact investigators, we were not able to obtain data on mortality in persons with CKD in several prior clinical trials. Therefore, these trials were excluded by necessity. Among the 18 studies with almost 16 000 participants with CKD, we found no evidence of heterogeneity. This observation provides confidence, although not certainty, that the results would likely have been similar with the inclusion of additional studies. Second, we lacked data by severity of CKD and thus could not evaluate the effect of more intensive BP lowering on mortality stratified by CKD severity. Most individuals in the included trials had CKD stage 3, and we acknowledge that the risks and benefits of more intensive BP lowering may differ in persons with more advanced CKD. Third, baseline BP and the intensity of BP reduction in the randomized treatment arms differed across the individual trials. As such, we are not able to provide an estimate of an optimal BP target in patients with CKD. We recognize that CVD events, CKD progression, AKI, and ESRD are important factors that may be in the causal pathway between more intensive BP lowering and mortality and were not able to assess these end points.

Conclusions

Among trial participants with hypertension and an eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, randomization to more intensive BP lowering was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality. This finding was consistent across trials, with no evidence of heterogeneity. A nonsignificant suggestion of greater mortality benefit was observed in trials that achieved the greatest difference in SBP across arms. Although additional studies and intensive monitoring for safety are warranted, these data support that the net benefits may outweigh the net harms of more intensive BP lowering in persons with CKD.

Back to top
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: July 3, 2017.

Corresponding Author: Joachim H. Ix, MD, MAS, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, CA 92093 (joeix@ucsd.edu).

Published Online: September 5, 2017. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.4377

Author Contributions: Drs Malhotra and Ix had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the analysis.

Study concept and design: Malhotra, Nguyen, Howard, Holman, Staessen, Ix.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Malhotra, Benavente, Mete, Mant, Odden, Peralta, Cheung, Nadkarni, Coleman, Holman, Zanchetti, Peters, Beckett, Staessen, Ix.

Drafting of the manuscript: Malhotra, Nguyen.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Malhotra, Mete, Odden, Beckett, Staessen.

Obtained funding: Howard, Holman.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Malhotra, Nguyen, Odden, Nadkarni, Peters, Beckett, Ix.

Study supervision: Cheung, Holman, Zanchetti, Staessen, Ix.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Cheung reported serving as a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, reported being a contributor to UpToDate, and reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health for the conduct of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by grant 14EIA18560026 from the American Heart Association (Dr Ix) and by grants K24DK110427 and R01DK098234 (Dr Ix) and grant R01AG046206 (Drs Odden and Peralta) from the National Institutes of Health.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The article was prepared using Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP) research materials obtained from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of SHEP or the NHLBI.

Additional Contributions: Christopher J. Bulpitt, MD (Imperial College London and Brighton and Sussex Medical School) played a significant role in the HYVET trial publication,30 one of the primary papers we used in this meta-analysis. He received no compensation for his contribution to this work.

References
1.
Perico  N, Remuzzi  G.  Chronic kidney disease: a research and public health priority.  Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(suppl 3):iii19-iii26.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Murphy  D, McCulloch  CE, Lin  F,  et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Chronic Kidney Disease Surveillance Team.  Trends in prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the United States.  Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(7):473-481.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Woo  KT, Choong  HL, Wong  KS, Tan  HB, Chan  CM.  The contribution of chronic kidney disease to the global burden of major noncommunicable diseases.  Kidney Int. 2012;81(10):1044-1045.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Rapsomaniki  E, Timmis  A, George  J,  et al.  Blood pressure and incidence of twelve cardiovascular diseases: lifetime risks, healthy life-years lost, and age-specific associations in 1.25 million people.  Lancet. 2014;383(9932):1899-1911.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Lewington  S, Clarke  R, Qizilbash  N, Peto  R, Collins  R; Prospective Studies Collaboration.  Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies.  Lancet. 2002;360(9349):1903-1913.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Lewis  JB.  Blood pressure control in chronic kidney disease: is less really more?  J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;21(7):1086-1092.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Taler  SJ, Agarwal  R, Bakris  GL,  et al.  KDOQI US commentary on the 2012 KDIGO clinical practice guideline for management of blood pressure in CKD.  Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;62(2):201-213.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Verbeke  F, Lindley  E, Van Bortel  L,  et al.  A European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) position statement on the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure in non–dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease: an endorsement with some caveats for real-life application.  Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014;29(3):490-496.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Anderson  AH, Yang  W, Townsend  RR,  et al; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study Investigators.  Time-updated systolic blood pressure and the progression of chronic kidney disease: a cohort study.  Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(4):258-265.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Townsend  RR.  Blood pressure targets in CKD.  Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2015;22(2):96-101.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Kovesdy  CP, Bleyer  AJ, Molnar  MZ,  et al.  Blood pressure and mortality in U.S. veterans with chronic kidney disease: a cohort study.  Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(4):233-242.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Kovesdy  CP, Lu  JL, Molnar  MZ,  et al.  Observational modeling of strict vs conventional blood pressure control in patients with chronic kidney disease.  JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(9):1442-1449.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Klahr  S, Levey  AS, Beck  GJ,  et al; Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group.  The effects of dietary protein restriction and blood-pressure control on the progression of chronic renal disease.  N Engl J Med. 1994;330(13):877-884.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Wright  JT  Jr, Bakris  G, Greene  T,  et al; African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension Study Group.  Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK trial [published correction appears in JAMA. 2006;295(23):2726].  JAMA. 2002;288(19):2421-2431.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
James  PA, Oparil  S, Carter  BL,  et al.  2014 Evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8).  JAMA. 2014;311(5):507-520.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Mancia  G, Fagard  R, Narkiewicz  K,  et al; Task Force Members.  2013 ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).  J Hypertens. 2013;31(7):1281-1357.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Wright  JT  Jr, Williamson  JD, Whelton  PK,  et al; SPRINT Research Group.  A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control.  N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2103-2116.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
DerSimonian  R, Laird  N.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited.  Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;45(pt A):139-145.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Moher  D, Shamseer  L, Clarke  M,  et al; PRISMA-P Group.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.  Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Schulz  KF, Chalmers  I, Hayes  RJ, Altman  DG.  Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.  JAMA. 1995;273(5):408-412.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Lv  J, Ehteshami  P, Sarnak  MJ,  et al.  Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on the progression of chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  CMAJ. 2013;185(11):949-957.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Ruggenenti  P, Perna  A, Loriga  G,  et al; REIN-2 Study Group.  Blood-pressure control for renoprotection in patients with non-diabetic chronic renal disease (REIN-2): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.  Lancet. 2005;365(9463):939-946.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Toto  RD, Mitchell  HC, Smith  RD, Lee  HC, McIntire  D, Pettinger  WA.  “Strict” blood pressure control and progression of renal disease in hypertensive nephrosclerosis.  Kidney Int. 1995;48(3):851-859.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Estacio  RO, Jeffers  BW, Gifford  N, Schrier  RW.  Effect of blood pressure control on diabetic microvascular complications in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.  Diabetes Care. 2000;23(suppl 2):B54-B64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Schrier  R, McFann  K, Johnson  A,  et al.  Cardiac and renal effects of standard versus rigorous blood pressure control in autosomal-dominant polycystic kidney disease: results of a seven-year prospective randomized study.  J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002;13(7):1733-1739.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Schrier  RW, Estacio  RO, Esler  A, Mehler  P.  Effects of aggressive blood pressure control in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients on albuminuria, retinopathy and strokes.  Kidney Int. 2002;61(3):1086-1097.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Heerspink  HJ, Ninomiya  T, Perkovic  V,  et al; ADVANCE Collaborative Group.  Effects of a fixed combination of perindopril and indapamide in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.  Eur Heart J. 2010;31(23):2888-2896.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
SHEP Cooperative Research Group.  Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP).  JAMA. 1991;265(24):3255-3264.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Staessen  JA, Fagard  R, Thijs  L,  et al; Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators.  Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension.  Lancet. 1997;350(9080):757-764.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Beckett  NS, Peters  R, Fletcher  AE,  et al; HYVET Study Group.  Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older.  N Engl J Med. 2008;358(18):1887-1898.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Howard  BV, Roman  MJ, Devereux  RB,  et al.  Effect of lower targets for blood pressure and LDL cholesterol on atherosclerosis in diabetes: the SANDS randomized trial.  JAMA. 2008;299(14):1678-1689.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Cushman  WC, Evans  GW, Byington  RP,  et al; ACCORD Study Group.  Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.  N Engl J Med. 2010;362(17):1575-1585.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Benavente  OR, Coffey  CS, Conwit  R,  et al; SPS3 Study Group.  Blood-pressure targets in patients with recent lacunar stroke: the SPS3 randomised trial.  Lancet. 2013;382(9891):507-515.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Mant  J, McManus  RJ, Roalfe  A,  et al.  Different systolic blood pressure targets for people with history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack: PAST-BP (Prevention After Stroke–Blood Pressure) randomised controlled trial.  BMJ. 2016;352:i708.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group.  Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38.  BMJ. 1998;317(7160):703-713.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Hansson  L, Zanchetti  A, Carruthers  SG,  et al; HOT Study Group.  Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial.  Lancet. 1998;351(9118):1755-1762.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Lonn  EM, Bosch  J, López-Jaramillo  P,  et al; HOPE-3 Investigators.  Blood-pressure lowering in intermediate-risk persons without cardiovascular disease.  N Engl J Med. 2016;374(21):2009-2020.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Wei  Y, Jin  Z, Shen  G,  et al.  Effects of intensive antihypertensive treatment on Chinese hypertensive patients older than 70 years.  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2013;15(6):420-427.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Asayama  K, Ohkubo  T, Metoki  H,  et al; Hypertension Objective Treatment Based on Measurement by Electrical Devices of Blood Pressure (HOMED-BP).  Cardiovascular outcomes in the first trial of antihypertensive therapy guided by self-measured home blood pressure.  Hypertens Res. 2012;35(11):1102-1110.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Ogihara  T, Saruta  T, Rakugi  H,  et al; Valsartan in Elderly Isolated Systolic Hypertension Study Group.  Target blood pressure for treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly: Valsartan in Elderly Isolated Systolic Hypertension Study.  Hypertension. 2010;56(2):196-202.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Verdecchia  P, Staessen  JA, Angeli  F,  et al; Cardio-Sis Investigators.  Usual versus tight control of systolic blood pressure in non-diabetic patients with hypertension (Cardio-Sis): an open-label randomised trial  [published correction appears  in Lancet. 2009;374(9693):880].  Lancet. 2009;374(9689):525-533.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
JATOS Study Group.  Principal results of the Japanese Trial to Assess Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure in Elderly Hypertensive Patients (JATOS).  Hypertens Res. 2008;31(12):2115-2127.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Liu  L, Zhang  Y, Liu  G, Li  W, Zhang  X, Zanchetti  A; FEVER Study Group.  The Felodipine Event Reduction (FEVER) Study: a randomized long-term placebo-controlled trial in Chinese hypertensive patients.  J Hypertens. 2005;23(12):2157-2172.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Hansson  L, Lithell  H, Skoog  I,  et al.  Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE).  Blood Press. 1999;8(3):177-183.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Liu  L, Wang  JG, Gong  L, Liu  G, Staessen  JA; Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China) Collaborative Group.  Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension.  J Hypertens. 1998;16(12, pt 1):1823-1829.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
MRC Working Party.  Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results.  BMJ. 1992;304(6824):405-412.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Dahlöf  B, Lindholm  LH, Hansson  L, Scherstén  B, Ekbom  T, Wester  PO.  Morbidity and mortality in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension (STOP-Hypertension).  Lancet. 1991;338(8778):1281-1285.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Amery  A, Birkenhäger  W, Brixko  P,  et al.  Mortality and morbidity results from the European Working Party on High Blood Pressure in the Elderly trial.  Lancet. 1985;1(8442):1349-1354.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Ninomiya  T, Perkovic  V, Turnbull  F,  et al; Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.  Blood pressure lowering and major cardiovascular events in people with and without chronic kidney disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.  BMJ. 2013;347:f5680.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Peralta  CA, McClure  LA, Scherzer  R,  et al.  Effect of intensive versus usual blood pressure control on kidney function among individuals with prior lacunar stroke: a post hoc analysis of the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) randomized trial.  Circulation. 2016;133(6):584-591.PubMedGoogle Scholar
51.
Ku  E, Bakris  G, Johansen  KL,  et al.  Acute declines in renal function during intensive BP lowering: implications for future ESRD risk [published online May 4, 2017].  J Am Soc Nephrol. doi:10.1681/ASN.2017010040PubMedGoogle Scholar
52.
Thomopoulos  C, Parati  G, Zanchetti  A.  Effects of blood pressure lowering on outcome incidence in hypertension, 1: overview, meta-analyses, and meta-regression analyses of randomized trials.  J Hypertens. 2014;32(12):2285-2295.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Thomopoulos  C, Parati  G, Zanchetti  A.  Effects of blood pressure lowering treatment in hypertension, 8: outcome reductions vs. discontinuations because of adverse drug events: meta-analyses of randomized trials.  J Hypertens. 2016;34(8):1451-1463.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Kidney Disease; Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Blood Pressure Work Group.  KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure in chronic kidney disease.  Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2:337-414.Google ScholarCrossref
55.
Appel  LJ, Wright  JT  Jr, Greene  T,  et al; AASK Collaborative Research Group.  Intensive blood-pressure control in hypertensive chronic kidney disease.  N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):918-929.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Sarnak  MJ, Greene  T, Wang  X,  et al.  The effect of a lower target blood pressure on the progression of kidney disease: long-term follow-up of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study.  Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(5):342-351.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×