Context: Eighty-five percent of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have hypertension, and blood pressure (BP) control is the cornerstone in the management of CKD. Although it is widely accepted that BP should be optimized, BP targets in CKD are not known. Subject of Review: Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for the management of BP in CKD (Kidney Int. 2021 Mar 1;99(3S):S1–87) recommends targeting BP to less than 120 mm Hg systolic for patients with CKD. Second Opinion: KDIGO BP target differs from all other hypertension guidelines. This is also a major change from the previous recommendation which was <140 systolic to all patients with CKD and <130 systolic for those with proteinuria. Targeting systolic BP to less than 120 mm Hg is hard to substantiate based on available data and is based primarily on subgroup analysis of a randomized control trial. Intensive BP lowering as suggested by the guidelines may lead to polypharmacy, added cost burden, and risk of serious harms.

Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) is a global non-profit organization which develops guidelines for the management of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The 2021 clinical practice guidelines for the management of blood pressure (BP) recommend targeting BP to less than 120 mm Hg systolic for patients with CKD (evidence 2B) [1]. This is a major change to the previous recommendation which was <140 systolic to all patients with CKD and <130 systolic for those with proteinuria [2]. This recommendation is an outlier and differs from other major hypertension guidelines [3‒5]. Elevated BP is not a disease but a risk factor for cardiovascular disease [6]; hence, the goal of the treatment is cardiovascular risk reduction and not aiming for a target BP. This is highlighted in the latest ACC/AHA guidelines which recommend assessing cardiovascular disease risk before considering pharmacotherapy for patients with hypertension. Eighty-five percent of patients with CKD have hypertension, and optimal BP control is the cornerstone in the management of CKD; hence, these new recommendations have significant implications in terms of added cost, polypharmacy, and possible harms of the lower BP targets.

KDIGO recommendation of BP target is largely based on the pre-specified subgroup analysis of the SPRINT trial – SPRINT CKD [7, 8]. In 2,646 participants with CKD, randomized to standard or intensive BP lowering, after a median follow-up of 3.3 years, hazard ratios for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome and rate of all-cause death were 0.81 (0.61–1.05) and 0.72 (0.53–0.99), respectively. The authors of the trial concluded that among patients with CKD and hypertension without diabetes, targeting an SBP <120 mm Hg reduced rates of major cardiovascular events and all-cause death without evidence of effect modifications by CKD or deleterious effect on the main kidney outcomes [8].

The SPRINT trial excluded patients with diabetes, proteinuria >1 g/day, polycystic kidney disease, glomerulonephritis, patients with severe CKD, i.e., eGFR <20 mL/min, and those who are younger than 50 years. Trial participants were elderly (mean age of 67 years), had mild decrease in renal function (mean serum creatinine of 1.56 mg/dL), and no significant albuminuria (UACR ∼ 40 mg/g) [7]. This spectrum of CKD in the SPRINT participants resembles more to age-associated decrease in the GFR. In fact, the rate of GFR decline in the trial was similar to the age-related decline in kidney function – about 0.5 mL per min per year. Without significant albuminuria, the clinical significance of this class of CKD is questionable and promotes medicalization of ageing [9]. A study highlighting the limited generalizability of the SPRINT trial noted that most real-world CKD patients are different from the trial participants [10]. CKD patients in the subgroup analysis are different from the participants of landmark randomized controlled trials evaluating antihypertensive therapies in CKD [11‒16]. These trials enrolled patients having kidney disease with significant risk of progression: diabetics, participants who had significant proteinuria or decreased renal function at baseline. In such patients with CKD, CV risk is significantly contributed by non-traditional CKD-specific risk factors in addition to traditional risk factors; therefore, renoprotection and CV risk reduction are likely to go hand in hand, unlike the dissociation of these outcomes noted in the SPRINT trial [17].

Randomized trials (African American Study of Kidney Disease [AASK], Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD], REIN-2, SPRINT), examining BP targets in patients with CKD, had similar inclusion criteria with regards to kidney function, i.e., eGFR 20–59 mL/min. However, eGFR of enrolled participants in SPRINT trial was higher than the other two. Reasons for enrolling high eGFR patients in SPRINT are not clear, but it may partially be related to the reluctance of the treating physicians to enrol patients with significant kidney disease to intensive BP lowering.

Another difficulty in wider application of the SPRINT trial’s result is the method of BP measurement – ambulatory office blood pressure (AOBP), which gives BP reading approximately 7–14 mm Hg lower than routine office BP measures [18‒20]. If AOBP is to be implemented for CKD patients in primary care settings, additional time (about 7 min more per patient) and restructuring of clinics needed for implementing AOBP can be demanding. Even after adjusting for this difference in the method of BP measurement, none of the above-mentioned CKD hypertension trials achieved target SBP <120 mm Hg. For example, BP in the intervention arm at the end of the study of RENAAL, IDNT, Captopril trial was 140/74, 140/77, and between 128 and 134 mm Hg, respectively. All these factors limit the generalizability of the SPRINT CKD results to practice.

MDRD and AASK trials evaluating the effect of intensive versus less intensive BP targets in real-world non-diabetic CKD (serum creatinine 2–2.2 mg/dL, >30% participants had UACR >0.22) concluded that a lower target does not offer additional renoprotection than usual targets. Subgroup analysis of patients with proteinuria suggested the benefit of a lower BP target on kidney outcomes. Post-trial follow-up of AASK and MDRD (for 14–15 years) found reduced overall mortality (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.76–0.90) and reduced the progression to ESKD (HR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78–1.00) with lower BP target, but the benefit was confined to those with proteinuria [21]. These findings should be interpreted with caution: they are discordant with the primary outcome of the original trials, observed differences in outcomes are marginal, and there was no difference in the BP between the groups during post-trial follow-up. Meta-analyses combining these trials of various designs, interventions, and different BP targets have reached different conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of intensive BP control [22, 23].

If we adopt KDIGO 2021 BP target, proportion of CKD patients needed BP-lowering treatment will increase by 15–20% [24, 25]. Intensive BP in CKD may be associated with harm. Two trials that dealt with a very similar BP target in diabetics and non-diabetics (ACCORD BP and SPRINT) reached different primary outcomes; however, both noted an increased incidence of side effects with intensive BP lowering. In the ACCORD BP trial, serious adverse events attributed to BP lowering were more likely in the intensive-lowering arm: hypotension and syncope, bradycardia/arrhythmias [26]. Importantly, in a population at very low risk of progressive CKD (mean creatinine 0.9 mg, median UACR 14 mg/g), risk of eGFR <30 mL (as an adverse lab measure) almost doubled with intensive BP lowering (99 [4.2%] vs. 52 [2.2%] <0.001). Renal failure occurred in 5 patients in the intensive control arm versus 1 patient in the less intensive arm of ACCORD BP trial. In the SPRINT, in addition to increased risk of hypotension, syncope, and electrolyte abnormalities, intensive arm had higher incidence of AKI (204 [4.4%] vs. 120 [2.65], HR 1.71, p < 0.001) and ≥30% reduction in estimated GFR to <60 mL (127 [3.85] vs. 37 [1.1%], HR 3.49, p < 0.001). A post hoc analysis of the SPRINT demonstrated that the CV benefit of intensive BP lowering is no longer significant at eGFR <45 mL/min and showed a higher risk of AKI and eGFR decrease of over 30% and 50% with this intervention [27]. Long-term significance of these adverse kidney events is not known. Dismissing it as a haemodynamic and transient phenomenon may not be wise, given the relationship of these events with adverse CV outcomes [28]. In elderly CKD patients with comorbidities, harms of the intensive BP lowering like falls, fractures, and AKI may be more pronounced [29, 30].

Finally, a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT for patients with higher baseline BP at enrolment and without other traditional CV risk factors (which may be the case with younger patients with CKD), lower target BP was associated with increased risk of death [31]. J curve phenomenon-increased CV mortality at very high and low BP is described in the general population as well as in CKD [32]. In addition, decline in kidney function associated with intensive BP lowering may itself contribute to increased CV risk in these patients.

The SPRINT was terminated early after 3.5 years. Premature termination of trial for benefits decreases the power of the study both for main and subgroup outcomes and underestimates harm. Outside the trial environment, pill burden and increased risk of adverse events in the intensive group can be concerning for patients, physicians and lead to non-adherence.

Most randomized control trials addressing BP treatment in CKD and its impact on outcomes (like kidney disease progression, kidney failure, cardiovascular events, or all-cause death) enrolled patients with mild to moderate decrease in kidney function. Evidence guiding BP treatment in more severe CKD (and not on dialysis) is sparse (shown in Fig. 1). KDIGO states that some subgroups may not benefit from intensive BP control because potential benefits and harms that may vary with comorbidities, severity of CKD, existing treatment burden, and the presence of white-coat or masked hypertension. However, KDIGO does not make any distinction regarding the severity of CKD, implying that a target <120 mm Hg is valid across the entire spectrum of CKD. Uncertainties about the benefit-risk of lower BP targets should be clearly discussed with the patients, and BP goals should be individualized based on the patient preferences and tolerability.

Fig. 1.

Estimated GFR with standard deviation (SD) of participants enrolled in various hypertension trials. eGFR values of IDNT and RENAAL have been calculated using CKD-EPI race-free equation based on the serum creatinine values reported in respective trials. The mean serum creatinine (SD) values of RENAAL and IDNT trials are 1.67 (0.53) mg/dL and 1.67 (0.53) mg/dL, respectively.

Fig. 1.

Estimated GFR with standard deviation (SD) of participants enrolled in various hypertension trials. eGFR values of IDNT and RENAAL have been calculated using CKD-EPI race-free equation based on the serum creatinine values reported in respective trials. The mean serum creatinine (SD) values of RENAAL and IDNT trials are 1.67 (0.53) mg/dL and 1.67 (0.53) mg/dL, respectively.

Close modal

Considering the indirect nature of the evidence (data from a subgroup analysis), serious risk of bias (open-label design of the trials), and inconsistency of the evidence (previous large trial ACCORD showing futility and harm), we argue that the evidence to support intensive BP lowering in CKD is weak, and evidence for the KDIGO recommendation is 2C and not 2B [33]. Based on the available evidence, it is reasonable to maintain BP <130/80 for proteinuric and <140/90 for non-proteinuric cases, with close monitoring of those targeted to BP <130 mm Hg for the adverse events.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Tukaram Jamale: concept, data collection, and draft. Manjunath Kulkarni and Vaibhav Keskar: data collection and draft.

1.
Cheung
AK
,
Chang
TI
,
Cushman
WC
,
Furth
SL
,
Hou
FF
,
Ix
JH
.
Executive summary of the KDIGO 2021 clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure in chronic kidney disease
.
Kidney Int
.
2021
;
99
(
3
):
559
69
.
2.
Becker
GJ
,
Wheeler
DC
,
de Zeeuw
D
,
Fujita
T
,
Furth
SL
,
Holdaas
H
.
KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure in chronic kidney disease
.
Kidney Int Suppl
.
2012
[cited 2022 Dec 11];
2
5
337
414
. Available from: https://jhu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/kidney-disease-improving-global-outcomes-kdigo-blood-pressure-wor-4.
3.
Williams
B
,
Mancia
G
,
Spiering
W
,
Agabiti Rosei
E
,
Azizi
M
,
Burnier
M
.
2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension
.
Eur Heart J
.
2018 Sep 1
39
33
3021
104
.
4.
Whelton
PK
,
Carey
RM
,
Aronow
WS
,
Casey
DE
,
Collins
KJ
,
Dennison Himmelfarb
C
.
2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on clinical practice guidelines
.
Hypertension
.
2018 Jun 1
71
6
1269
324
.
5.
Major
RW
,
Shepherd
D
,
Medcalf
JF
,
Xu
G
,
Gray
LJ
,
Brunskill
NJ
.
The Kidney Failure Risk Equation for prediction of end stage renal disease in UK primary care: an external validation and clinical impact projection cohort study
.
PLoS Med
.
2019
;
16
(
11
):
e1002955
.
6.
Basu
S
,
Yudkin
JS
,
Sussman
JB
,
Millett
C
,
Hayward
RA
.
Alternative strategies to achieve cardiovascular mortality goals in China and India: a microsimulation of target-versus risk-based blood pressure treatment
.
Circulation
.
2016 Mar 1
133
9
840
8
.
7.
Final report of a trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control
.
New Engl J Med
.
2021 May 20
384
20
1921
30
.
8.
Cheung
AK
,
Rahman
M
,
Reboussin
DM
,
Craven
TE
,
Greene
T
,
Kimmel
PL
.
Effects of intensive BP control in CKD
.
J Am Soc Nephrol
.
2017 Sep 1
28
9
2812
23
.
9.
Moynihan
R
,
Glassock
R
,
Doust
J
.
Chronic kidney disease controversy: how expanding definitions are unnecessarily labelling many people as diseased
.
BMJ
.
2013 Jul 30
347
f4298
.
10.
Minutolo
R
,
de Nicola
L
,
Gallo
C
,
Chiodini
P
,
Provenzano
M
,
Conte
G
.
Generalizability of SPRINT-CKD cohort to CKD patients referred to renal clinics
.
J Nephrol
.
2019 Jun 1
32
3
429
35
.
11.
Lewis
EJ
,
Hunsicker
LG
,
Clarke
WR
,
Berl
T
,
Pohl
MA
,
Lewis
JB
.
Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes
.
N Engl J Med
.
2001 Sep 20
345
12
851
60
.
12.
Brenner
BM
,
Cooper
ME
,
de Zeeuw
D
,
Keane
WF
,
Mitch
WE
,
Parving
HH
.
Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy
.
N Engl J Med
.
2001 Sep 20
345
12
861
9
.
13.
Klahr
S
,
Levey
AS
,
Beck
GJ
,
Caggiula
AW
,
Hunsicker
L
,
Kusek
JW
The effects of dietary protein restriction and blood-pressure control on the progression of chronic renal disease
.
1994 Mar 31
330
13
877
84
.
14.
Appel
LJ
,
Wright
JT
,
Greene
T
,
Agodoa
LY
,
Astor
BC
,
Bakris
GL
.
Intensive blood-pressure control in hypertensive chronic kidney disease
.
N Engl J Med
.
2010 Sep 2
363
10
918
29
.
15.
Lewis
EJ
,
Hunsicker
LG
,
Bain
RP
,
Rohde
RD
.
The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy
.
N Engl J Med
.
1993 Nov 11
329
20
1456
62
.
16.
Ruggenenti
P
,
Perna
A
,
Loriga
G
,
Ganeva
M
,
Ene-Iordache
B
,
Turturro
M
.
Blood-pressure control for renoprotection in patients with non-diabetic chronic renal disease (REIN-2): multicentre, randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet
.
2005 Mar 12
365
9463
939
46
.
17.
Jankowski
J
,
Floege
J
,
Fliser
D
,
Böhm
M
,
Marx
N
.
Cardiovascular disease in chronic kidney disease
.
Circulation
.
2021 Mar 16
143
11
1157
72
.
18.
Pappaccogli
M
,
di Monaco
S
,
Perlo
E
,
Burrello
J
,
D’Ascenzo
F
,
Veglio
F
.
Comparison of automated office blood pressure with office and out-off-office measurement techniques
.
Hypertension
.
2019
;
73
(
2
):
481
90
.
19.
Roerecke
M
,
Kaczorowski
J
,
Myers
MG
.
Comparing automated office blood pressure readings with other methods of blood pressure measurement for identifying patients with possible hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
JAMA Intern Med
.
2019 Mar 1
179
3
351
62
.
20.
Drawz
PE
,
Agarwal
A
,
Dwyer
JP
,
Horwitz
E
,
Lash
J
,
Lenoir
K
.
Concordance between blood pressure in the systolic blood pressure intervention trial and in routine clinical practice
.
JAMA Intern Med
.
2020 Dec 1
180
12
1655
63
.
21.
Ku
E
,
Gassman
J
,
Appel
LJ
,
Smogorzewski
M
,
Sarnak
MJ
,
Glidden
DV.
.
BP control and long-term risk of ESRD and mortality
.
J Am Soc Nephrol
.
2017 Feb
28
2
671
7
.
22.
Malhotra
R
,
Nguyen
HA
,
Benavente
O
,
Mete
M
,
Howard
BV
,
Mant
J
.
Association between more intensive vs less intensive blood pressure lowering and risk of mortality in chronic kidney disease stages 3 to 5: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
JAMA Intern Med
.
2017 Oct 1
177
10
1498
505
.
23.
Bangalore
S
,
Toklu
B
,
Gianos
E
,
Schwartzbard
A
,
Weintraub
H
,
Ogedegbe
G
.
Optimal systolic blood pressure target after SPRINT: insights from a network meta-analysis of randomized trials
.
Am J Med
.
2017 Jun 1
130
6
707
19.e8
.
24.
Foti
KE
,
Wang
D
,
Chang
AR
,
Selvin
E
,
Sarnak
MJ
,
Chang
TI
.
Potential implications of the 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline for adults with chronic kidney disease in the United States
.
Kidney Int
.
2021 Mar 1
99
3
686
95
.
25.
Lee
HH
,
Lee
H
,
Townsend
RR
,
Kim
DW
,
Park
S
,
Kim
HC
.
Cardiovascular implications of the 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline for adults with chronic kidney disease
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
.
2022 May 3
79
17
1675
86
.
26.
Cushman
C
,
Evans
GW
,
Byington
RP
,
Goff
DC
,
Grimm
RH
,
Cutler
JA
Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus
.
2010 Apr 29
362
17
1575
85
.
27.
Obi
Y
,
Kalantar-Zadeh
K
,
Shintani
A
,
Kovesdy
CP
,
Hamano
T
.
Estimated glomerular filtration rate and the risk–benefit profile of intensive blood pressure control amongst nondiabetic patients: a post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial
.
J Intern Med
.
2018 Mar 1
283
3
314
27
.
28.
Drawz
PE
,
Rai
NK
,
Lenoir
KM
,
Suarez
M
,
Powell
JR
,
Raj
DS
.
Effect of intensive versus standard BP control on AKI and subsequent cardiovascular outcomes and mortality: findings from the SPRINT EHR study
.
Kidney360
.
2022 Jul 28
3
7
1253
62
.
29.
Mann
JFE
,
Chang
TI
,
Cushman
WC
,
Furth
SL
,
Ix
JH
,
Hou
FF
.
Commentary on the KDIGO 2021 clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure in CKD
.
Curr Cardiol Rep
.
2021 Sep 1
23
9
132
.
30.
Chen
T
,
Shao
F
,
Chen
K
,
Wang
Y
,
Wu
Z
,
Wang
Y
.
Time to clinical benefit of intensive blood pressure lowering in patients 60 Years and older with hypertension: a secondary analysis of randomized clinical trials
.
JAMA Intern Med
.
2022 Jun 1
182
6
660
7
.
31.
Pan
HY
,
Lin
HJ
,
Chen
WJ
,
Wang
TD
.
Increased mortality with intensive control in patients with higher baseline SBP and lower Framingham risk
.
J Hypertens
.
2022 May 1
40
5
978
84
.
32.
Robles
NR
,
Hernandez-Gallego
R
,
Fici
F
,
Grassi
G
.
Does a blood pressure J curve exist for patients with chronic kidney disease
.
J Clin Hypertens
.
2017 Aug 1
19
8
764
70
.
33.
Guyatt
GH
,
Oxman
AD
,
Vist
GE
,
Kunz
R
,
Falck-Ytter
Y
,
Alonso-Coello
P
.
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
.
BMJ
.
2008 Apr 26
336
7650
924
6
.