ReviewJournal of human hypertension2018
The optimal blood pressure target in diabetes mellitus: a quest coming to an end?
Review in Journal of human hypertension, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Individualizing antihypertensive therapy in diabetes mellitus. Guidelines of the Austrian Diabetes Association (Update 2026)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Guideline
- [Individualising antihypertensive therapy in patients with diabetes. A guideline by the Austrian Diabetes Association (update 2023)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2023Guideline
- Antihypertensive Medication Use and Its Effects on Blood Pressure and Haemodynamics in a Tri-ethnic Population Cohort: Southall and Brent Revisited (SABRE).Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Comparison of ambulatory central hemodynamics and arterial stiffness in patients with diabetic and non-diabetic CKD.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
- [Individualising antihypertensive therapy in patients with diabetes. A guideline by the Austrian Diabetes Association (Update 2019)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The presence of hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) substantially increases cardiovascular risk. Blood pressure (BP) decrease in these individuals is associated with large reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, but the optimal BP levels in DM still remain a matter of important controversy. For almost 20 years, guidelines recommended an office BP target of <130/80 mmHg in diabetic individuals, following evidence from trials randomizing patients to diastolic BP levels. When the action-to-control-cardiovascular-risk-in-diabetes-blood-pressure (ACCORD-BP) study showed that systolic BP (SBP) <120 mmHg was associated with similar risk to SBP < 140 mmHg in type 2 DM, all guidelines stepped back to recommend a SBP < 140 mmHg, despite the obvious limitations of ACCORD-BP, including the surprisingly low event rate and the actual average BP of 133.5/70.5 mmHg in the "standard-target" arm. In contrast, the systolic-blood-pressure-intervention-trial (SPRINT) showed cardiovascular benefits in hypertensive patients without DM randomized to SBP<120 versus <140 mmHg and many believed that absence of between-group differences in ACCORD-BP was rather a matter of power and not of dissimilar cardiovascular profile of diabetic patients. In this regard, the American-College-of-Cardiology/American-Heart-Association 2017 BP guidelines advocated a BP target of <130/80 in all hypertensives, including those with DM. However, the 2018 American-Diabetes-Association recommendations were not in the same direction, suggesting BP goal <140/90 for most patients, with the exception of those with "high cardiovascular risk", where a <130/80 mmHg target may apply. This review presents the evidence from old and recent trials relevant to optimal BP levels in DM, aiming to shed light in this major clinical question.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.