Abstract / Summary
Although guidelines recommend lower blood pressure targets for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remains inconsistent regarding the balance between reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and the risk of adverse events. This meta-analysis included RCTs comparing intensive versus conventional blood pressure control in patients with T2D. The primary outcome was MACE, and secondary outcomes included adverse events. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the influence of different blood pressure targets and concomitant intensive glucose or lipid management. Nine trials comprising 34,260 participants with T2D were included. Intensive blood pressure control was associated with a significantly lower risk of MACE compared with conventional control [7.9% vs 9.7%; risk ratio (RR), 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89; P < 0.001]. Among individual MACE components, intensive treatment significantly lowered the risk of stroke (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87; P = 0.008), whereas no significant differences were observed for heart failure, myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death risk. Subgroup analyses suggested a potentially treatment benefit in trials aiming for a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of <130 mm Hg and incorporating an explicit diastolic blood pressure (DBP) target Concomitant intensive glucose or lipid control did not significantly modify the treatment effect. Regarding safety, intensive treatment was associated with a borderline increased risk of hypotension (RR, 4.61; 95% CI, 1.01-20.99; P = 0.05) but not with other adverse events. Intensive blood pressure control significantly reduces the risk of MACE in patients with T2D. Strategies incorporating explicit DBP targets may offer substantial benefits. However, it should be paid attention to monitoring and preventing adverse events. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420251266814.
Primary Source
Frontiers in endocrinology
Ask Prognia AI
Have questions about this meta-analysis?
Prognia AI can search this source alongside 35M+ PubMed papers and current ESC, AHA, NICE, and ADA guidelines to give you a fully cited clinical answer.