Long-term follow-up after tight control of blood pressure in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND Post-trial monitoring of patients in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) examined whether risk reductions for microvascular and macrovascular disease, achieved with the use of improved blood-pressure control during the trial, would be sustained. METHODS Among 5102 UKPDS patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus, we randomly assigned, over a 4-year period beginning in 1987, 1148 patients with hypertension to tight or less-tight blood-pressure control regimens. The 884 patients who underwent post-trial monitoring were asked to attend annual UKPDS clinics for the first 5 years, but no attempt was made to maintain their previously assigned therapies. Annual questionnaires completed by patients and general practitioners were used to follow patients who were unable to attend the clinic in years 1 through 5, and questionnaires were used for all patients in years 6 to 10. Seven prespecified aggregate clinical end points were examined on an intention-to-treat basis, according to the previous randomization categories. RESULTS Differences in blood pressure between the two groups during the trial disappeared within 2 years after termination of the trial. Significant relative risk reductions found during the trial for any diabetes-related end point, diabetes-related death, microvascular disease, and stroke in the group receiving tight, as compared with less tight, blood-pressure control were not sustained during the post-trial follow-up. No risk reductions were seen during or after the trial for myocardial infarction or death from any cause, but a risk reduction for peripheral vascular disease associated with tight blood-pressure control became significant (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS The benefits of previously improved blood-pressure control were not sustained when between-group differences in blood pressure were lost. Early improvement in blood-pressure control in patients with both type 2 diabetes and hypertension was associated with a reduced risk of complications, but it appears that good blood-pressure control must be continued if the benefits are to be maintained. (UKPDS 81; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN75451837.)

[1]  G. Moneta,et al.  Intensive Diabetes Treatment and Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes , 2007 .

[2]  R. Holman,et al.  Additive effects of glycaemia and blood pressure exposure on risk of complications in type 2 diabetes: a prospective observational study (UKPDS 75) , 2006, Diabetologia.

[3]  Effects of enalapril on mortality in severe congestive heart failure. Results of the Cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study (CONSENSUS). , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  L. Niskanen,et al.  Effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomised trial , 1999, The Lancet.

[5]  J. Neaton,et al.  Diabetes, Other Risk Factors, and 12-Yr Cardiovascular Mortality for Men Screened in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial , 1993, Diabetes Care.

[6]  A. Williams EuroQol : a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life , 1990 .

[7]  M. Pahor,et al.  Outcome Results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in Patients With Hypertension and NIDDM , 1998, Diabetes Care.

[8]  R. Holman,et al.  10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  Illiam,et al.  THE EFFECT OF NISOLDIPINE AS COMPARED WITH ENALAPRIL ON CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH NON-INSULIN-DEPENDENT DIABETES AND HYPERTENSION , 2000 .

[10]  Clara Latorre,et al.  Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes , 2008 .

[11]  R. Holman,et al.  Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. , 1998 .

[12]  O. Pedersen,et al.  Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  K. Swedberg,et al.  Long-term survival in severe heart failure in patients treated with enalapril. Ten year follow-up of CONSENSUS I. , 1999, European heart journal.

[14]  Irene M. Stratton,et al.  UK prospective diabetes study (UKPDS) , 2004, Diabetologia.

[15]  Oluf Pedersen,et al.  Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  J. Williamson,et al.  Therapeutic benefits of ACE inhibitors and other antihypertensive drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes. , 2000, Diabetes care.

[17]  R. Holman,et al.  Risk factors for coronary artery disease in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: United Kingdom prospective diabetes study (UKPDS: 23) , 1998, BMJ.

[18]  H. Parving,et al.  Therapeutic benefits of ACE inhibitors and other antihypertensive drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes. , 2001, Diabetes care.

[19]  R. Holman,et al.  Hypertension in Diabetes Study IV. Therapeutic requirements to maintain tight blood pressure control Hypertension in Diabetes Study Group* , 1996, Diabetologia.

[20]  Anushka Patel,et al.  Effects of a fixed combination of perindopril and indapamide on macrovascular and microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (the ADVANCE trial): a randomised controlled trial , 2007, The Lancet.

[21]  R. Schrier,et al.  The effect of nisoldipine as compared with enalapril on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and hypertension. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.