Trial reportJAMA network open2023
Identifying Patients for Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment Based on Cognitive Benefit: A Secondary Analysis of the SPRINT Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01206062 (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers.
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.
Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fluctuations in adherence to antihypertensive medication and cardiovascular outcomes: a secondary analysis of the SPRINT trial.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026Trial
- Long-Term Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control on Mild Cognitive Impairment and Probable Dementia in SPRINT.Neurology · 2025Trial
- High-Sensitivity Troponin T, NT-proBNP, and Cognitive Outcomes in SPRINT.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2024Trial
- The enigma of vascular dementia: current state and emerging perspectives.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
- Association between blood pressure and risk of ischemic stroke among individuals with dementia: A nationwide cohort study.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026Article
- Alternative clinical trial designs to find a clinically important effect size of blood pressure-lowering on cognitive impairment and dementia.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2026Article
- Impact of long-term systolic blood pressure on cognitive disorder risk: Across different age groups and antihypertensive medication timing.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2026Observational
- Predictive Modeling of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in RCTs: A Scoping Review.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Use of Angiotensin II Receptor Type 2/4 Stimulatory Vs. Inhibitory Antihypertensive Among Hypertensive Adults in the USA.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- 2025 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2025Review
- Potential clinical impact of predictive modeling of heterogeneous treatment effects: scoping review of the impact of the PATH Statement.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Optimal Blood Pressure Targets with Age.Clinics in geriatric medicine · 2024Review
- The impact of blood pressure lowering agents on the risk of worsening frailty among patients with diabetes mellitus: a cohort study.npj aging · 2024Article
- What Constitutes Adequate Control of High Blood Pressure? Current Considerations.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2024Article
- Is Intensive Blood Pressure Control Indicated in Older Patients with Hypertension?Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Hypertension, Neurodegeneration, and Cognitive Decline.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Intensive vs standard treatment to lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduces risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia; however, the magnitude of cognitive benefit likely varies among patients. Objective: To estimate the magnitude of cognitive benefit of intensive vs standard systolic BP (SBP) treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this ad hoc secondary analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), 9361 randomized clinical trial participants 50 years or older with high cardiovascular risk but without a history of diabetes, stroke, or dementia were followed up. The SPRINT trial was conducted between November 1, 2010, and August 31, 2016, and the present analysis was completed on October 31, 2022. Intervention: Systolic blood pressure treatment to an intensive (<120 mm Hg) vs standard (<140 mm Hg) target. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of adjudicated probable dementia or amnestic MCI. Results: A total of 7918 SPRINT participants were included in the analysis; 3989 were in the intensive treatment group (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [9.2] years; 2570 [64.4%] men; 1212 [30.4%] non-Hispanic Black) and 3929 were in the standard treatment group (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [9.4] years; 2570 [65.4%] men; 1249 [31.8%] non-Hispanic Black). Over a median follow-up of 4.13 (IQR, 3.50-5.88) years, there were 765 and 828 primary outcome events in the intensive treatment group and standard treatment group, respectively. Older age (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.78-1.96]), Medicare enrollment (HR per 1 SD, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.35-1.49]), and higher baseline serum creatinine level (HR per 1 SD, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.19-1.29]) were associated with higher risk of the primary outcome, while better baseline cognitive functioning (HR per 1 SD, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.41-0.44]) and active employment status (HR per 1 SD, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.42-0.46]) were associated with lower risk of the primary outcome. Risk of the primary outcome by treatment goal was estimated accurately based on similar projected and observed absolute risk differences (C statistic = 0.79). Higher baseline risk for the primary outcome was associated with greater benefit (ie, larger absolute reduction of probable dementia or amnestic MCI) of intensive vs standard treatment across the full range of estimated baseline risk. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of the SPRINT trial, participants with higher baseline projected risk of probable dementia or amnestic MCI gained greater absolute cognitive benefit from intensive vs standard SBP treatment in a monotonic fashion. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.
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.