Cardiovascular Outcomes in Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes: Impact of Blood Pressure Level and Presence of Kidney Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persons with chronic kidney disease (CKD) represent a population prone to cardiovascular disease (CVD) but vulnerable to adverse medication effects. We assessed the impact of intensive antihypertensive therapy on the cerebrovascular and other CVD outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes and baseline CKD. METHODS: Using current guideline criteria, 1,726 (36.9%) of 4,678 participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) blood pressure (BP) arm had mild to moderate CKD (CKD1-3B) at baseline. Participants of this study were randomized to intensive (systolic <120 mm Hg) or standard (systolic <140 mm Hg) BP goals. Fatal and non-fatal stroke were pre-specified secondary outcomes of the ACCORD study. RESULTS: Total cerebrovascular events were significantly higher in participants with baseline CKD (0.66%/year) compared with participants free of CKD (0.28%/year). A significantly higher rate of events was observed in CKD participants. Intensive antihypertensive therapy in participants without CKD at baseline resulted in a 55% significant reduction of any stroke (hazard ratio 0.447; 95% CI 0.227-0.880) and a 50% reduction of non-fatal stroke (hazard ratio 0.498; 95% CI 0.250-0.993). In participants with CKD at baseline, the occurrence of any stroke was reduced by 38% (hazard ratio 0.623; 95% CI 0.361-1.074) and non-fatal stroke by 36% (hazard ratio 0.642; 95% CI 0.361-1.142). Test for interaction was NS between the 2 groups. Changes in other CVD outcomes did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that intensive antihypertensive therapy offers significant cerebrovascular protection in diabetic participants without CKD at baseline, but significant benefit to patients with CKD cannot be excluded.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".