Intensive Blood Pressure Control and Cardiovascular Outcomes Across Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome Stages: A Post Hoc Analysis of the China Rural Hypertension Control Project

Xiaofan Guo; Shiyu Zhou; Jianjun Mu; Chunxia Zhao; Guozhe Sun; Ying Zhou; Yao Yu; Xiangyu Tan; Yangzhi Yin; Ziyi Xie; Wei Miao; Wenhang Li; Caiyu Zhang; Chenhua He; Jie Chen; Xiaoxuan Tian; Tianhao Li; Yifei Chen; Xiaobing Zhou; Mengling Lu; Qiyu Li; Ning Ye; Guangxiao Li; Yingxian Sun

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.57180

. 2026 Feb 13;9(2):e2557180. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.57180

Intensive Blood Pressure Control and Cardiovascular Outcomes Across Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome Stages

A Post Hoc Analysis of the China Rural Hypertension Control Project

Xiaofan Guo ¹, Shiyu Zhou ², Jianjun Mu ³, Chunxia Zhao ⁴, Guozhe Sun ¹, Ying Zhou ¹, Yao Yu ¹, Xiangyu Tan ¹, Yangzhi Yin ¹, Ziyi Xie ¹, Wei Miao ¹, Wenhang Li ¹, Caiyu Zhang ¹, Chenhua He ¹, Jie Chen ¹, Xiaoxuan Tian ¹, Tianhao Li ¹, Yifei Chen ¹, Xiaobing Zhou ¹, Mengling Lu ¹, Qiyu Li ¹, Ning Ye ¹, Guangxiao Li ⁵, Yingxian Sun ^1,^✉

¹Department of Cardiology, the First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China

²Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China

³Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China

⁴Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

⁵Department of Medical Record Management Center, the First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China

Accepted for Publication: December 9, 2025.

Published: February 13, 2026. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.57180

^✉

Corresponding Author: Yingxian Sun, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, The First Hospital of China Medical University, 155 Nanjing N St, Heping District, Shenyang, Liaoning Province 110001, China (yxsun@cmu.edu.cn).

Author Contributions: Dr Y. Sun had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Guo, S. Zhou, Mu, Zhao, and G. Sun contributed equally to this work.

Concept and design: Guo, S. Zhou, Mu, Zhao, G. Sun, Y. Zhou, Tan, Y. Sun.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Guo, S. Zhou, Mu, Zhao, G. Sun, Tan, Yu, Yin, Xie, Miao, W. Li, Zhang, He, J. Chen, Tian, T. Li, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, Lu, Q. Li, Ye, G. Li.

Drafting of the manuscript: Guo, S. Zhou, Mu, Zhao, G. Sun, Y. Zhou, Yu, Tan, Xie, W. Li, Zhang, Tian, T. Li, Y. Sun.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Guo, S. Zhou, Mu, Zhao, G. Sun, Yin, Miao, He, J. Chen, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, Lu, Q. Li, Ye, G. Li, Y. Sun.

Statistical analysis: Guo, S. Zhou, Mu, G. Sun, Y. Zhou, Yu, Xie, Zhang, J. Chen, T. Li, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, Lu, Q. Li, Ye, G. Li.

Obtained funding: Y. Sun.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Mu, Y. Sun.

Supervision: Guo, Zhao, G. Sun, Tan, Miao, W. Li, He, Tian, Y. Sun.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant 2017YFC1307600 from the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, grant 2024ZD0527301 from the National Science and Technology Major Project, and grant 2025JH2/102800059 from the Science and Technology Program of Liaoning Province, China.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.

Additional Contributions: The authors thank all participants and researchers in the China Rural Hypertension Control Project.

^✉

Corresponding author.

PMCID: PMC12905657 PMID: 41686438

Key Points

Question

Is intensive blood pressure management associated with consistent net clinical benefits across cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome stages?

Findings

In a secondary analysis of a large cluster randomized trial involving more than 33 000 adults, a comprehensive intensive blood pressure intervention was associated with significantly reduced risk of cardiovascular events across CKM syndrome stages 2 to 4. Net benefit analyses demonstrated favorable benefit-to-harm profiles at all stages.

Meaning

This study offers the first trial-based evidence to guide stage-specific CKM syndrome care and supports scalable strategies for high-risk, multimorbid populations, particularly in resource-limited settings, such as rural China.

This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial evaluates whether there are any differences in the outcomes, safety, and net clinical benefits associated with an intensive blood pressure control intervention by cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome stages.

Abstract

Importance

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome represents a syndromic continuum encompassing overlapping cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic dysfunction. Hypertension is a central driver in the pathogenesis of CKM syndrome, promoting both kidney and metabolic deterioration, but little is known about the benefits of intensive blood pressure (BP) control across CKM syndrome stages.

Objective

To evaluate CKM syndrome stage–specific outcomes, safety, and net clinical benefits associated with a comprehensive intensive BP intervention.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a post hoc, secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, the China Rural Hypertension Control Project (CRHCP), which was conducted between May 2018 and March 2023. Participants were adults aged 40 years or older with hypertension and CKM syndrome stages 2 to 4, which were defined using standard criteria. Stage 2 indicates that the patient has a metabolic risk factor; stage 3, subclinical cardiovascular disease or predicted 10-year risk of 20% or greater; and stage 4, clinical cardiovascular disease. In this analysis, participants had a median (IQR) follow-up of 3.02 (2.97-3.06) years. Data analysis was conducted from November 2024 to June 2025.

Intervention

The comprehensive BP control strategy targeted a systolic BP less than 130 mm Hg and a diastolic BP less than 80 mm Hg. The intervention was delivered by trained nonphysician practitioners.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary clinical outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cardiovascular death). Safety outcomes included hypotension, syncope, injurious falls, and kidney adverse events. A quantitative benefit-harm analysis was conducted to estimate net benefit associated with the intervention.

Results

Among 33 736 participants (mean [SD] age, 63.0 [9.2] years; 20 677 [61.3%] women), 18 662 (55.3%) had stage 2 CKM syndrome (of whom 9526 [51.0%] received the intervention), 7984 (23.7%) had stage 3 (of whom 4032 [50.5%] received the intervention), and 7090 (21.0%) had stage 4 (of whom 3713 [52.4%] received the intervention). Treatment outcomes were generally consistent across CKM syndrome stages. Intensive BP control was associated with reduced cardiovascular events across all stages: in stage 2, the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.50-0.73); in stage 3, the HR was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.58-0.84); and in stage 4, the HR was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.58-0.76). The risk of all-cause mortality was also lower in stage 2 (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.90) and stage 3 (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.96) but not in stage 4 (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20). Risk of hypotension increased across all stages (relative risk range, 1.79-2.34), while other adverse events, including kidney events, were similar between groups, despite some numerical variation across stages. Net benefits were favorable: stage 2, 1.58 (95% CI, 1.53-1.62); stage 3, 2.53 (95% CI, 2.42-2.64); and stage 4, 2.15 (95% CI, 2.04-2.26).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this post hoc analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, a comprehensive intervention targeting BP less than 130/80 mm Hg demonstrated a favorable benefit-to-harm profile across CKM syndrome stages, with no clear heterogeneity across CKM syndrome stages. These findings provide the first trial-based evidence to guide CKM syndrome management and support scalable strategies for this high-risk, multimorbid population.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03527719

Introduction

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome, newly defined by the American Heart Association (AHA) in 2023,¹ captures the syndromic convergence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and type 2 diabetes (T2D). These conditions often coexist and interact, leading to worse cardiovascular outcomes and substantial public health and economic burdens.^2,3,4,5 The CKM syndrome framework stages individuals from 0 to 4 based on risk factors, organ dysfunction, and established disease,¹ shifting chronic disease management from an organ-specific approach toward integrated, system-level strategies.

The prevalence of CKM syndrome is striking. In a nationally representative US cohort of 10 762 adults, approximately 90% met criteria for stage 1 or higher, and 15% were classified as stage 3 or higher.⁶ In China, nationally representative data from 2012 to 2015 showed that more than 80% of adults fell into stage 1 or higher, with nearly 1 in 4 reaching the advanced stages of CKM syndrome (stages 3-4), underscoring a substantial and growing public health burden.⁷ Despite its high prevalence and clinical complexity, current research provides limited evidence to guide risk-stratified management across CKM syndrome stages, particularly in clinical settings.

Hypertension is a central driver in the pathogenesis of CKM syndrome, promoting both kidney and metabolic deterioration. Evidence from high-risk populations shows that intensive blood pressure (BP) control can reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality by 24%,⁸ while each 5–mm Hg reduction in systolic BP in patients with CKD yields an additional 10% relative risk (RR) reduction.⁹ Hypertension also contributes to CKD onset and progression, substantially increasing the risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).¹⁰ Moreover, it is closely linked to metabolic dysfunction: individuals with poorly controlled BP are significantly more likely to have metabolic syndrome and T2D than those with effective BP control, as demonstrated by the Global Cardiometabolic Risk Profile Survey.¹¹

Although multiple randomized trials have established the cardiovascular benefits of intensive BP lowering in patients with hypertension,^{12,13,14,15,16,17} it remains unknown whether these benefits—and the associated risks—differ across stages of CKM syndrome. The China Rural Hypertension Control Project (CRHCP) was a large-scale, cluster-randomized trial that evaluated a comprehensive BP management strategy targeting systolic BP less than 130 mm Hg and diastolic BP less than 80 mm Hg, delivered by trained nonphysician practitioners in rural China.^14,15 In this post hoc analysis, we assessed the cardiovascular outcomes, safety, and stage-specific net clinical benefit associated with intensive BP control across CKM syndrome stages. To our knowledge, this is the first trial-based investigation to stratify treatment benefit and harm across CKM syndrome stages, providing critical evidence to inform stage-specific clinical decision-making and policy design in CKM syndrome population management.

Methods

Design and Participants

This study is a post hoc subgroup analysis based on CKM syndrome staging within the CRHCP. The CRHCP was an open-label, blinded end point, cluster randomized clinical trial conducted from May 2018 to March 2023 across 326 villages in 3 provinces of rural China. A total of 33 995 adults aged 40 years or older with hypertension were enrolled, with 17 407 participants from 163 villages assigned to the intervention group and 16 588 from another 163 villages receiving usual care. There were no strict exclusion criteria, enhancing the generalizability of the findings. The trial evaluated the effectiveness and safety of a comprehensive, intensive BP management strategy targeting BP less than 130/80 mm Hg, delivered by trained nonphysician community health care practitioners. Detailed descriptions of the trial design, implementation, and primary outcomes have been published previously.^18,19 The trial was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Hospital of China Medical University and all participating institutions. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants at enrollment. The protocol and statistical analysis plan of CRHCP are available in Supplement 1. This analysis was conducted post hoc and was not prespecified in the protocol. This report follows the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline for randomized clinical trials.

Of the 33 995 participants enrolled in the CRHCP trial, 259 were excluded due to missing data required for CKM syndrome staging. Because the proportion of missing data was small, no data imputation was performed. Information on participants lost to follow-up has been reported in the original CRHCP trial. A total of 33 736 participants were included in the present analysis (eFigure 1 in Supplement 2). CKM syndrome was staged from 0 to 4 based on the 2023 AHA framework and prior literature from a Korean population.^1,20 Because all participants in the CRHCP trial were diagnosed with hypertension at enrollment, no participants were in stages 0 or 1. This post hoc analysis thus focused on the higher-risk CKM syndrome stages (stages 2-4). Stage 2 was defined as the presence of a metabolic risk factors (eg, hypertriglyceridemia, defined as triglyceride level of 133 mg/dL or greater [to convert to micromoles per liter, multiply by 0.0113], metabolic syndrome, diabetes) or moderate to high–risk CKD based on Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria, in the absence of clinical CVD and with a 10-year predicted total CVD risk of less than 20%. Stage 3 included participants with subclinical CVD, such as very high-risk CKD per KDIGO or a predicted 10-year CVD risk of 20% or greater, but without clinical CVD. Stage 4 was defined as clinical CVD, including self-reported coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and represents the full expression of CKM syndrome. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated using the 2021 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine equation. The risk of CVD was derived from the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk estimated using the pooled cohort equations proposed by the American College of Cardiology and the AHA. The full staging definitions are provided in eTable 1 in Supplement 2.

Intervention and Measurements

The CRHCP was a cluster randomized clinical trial. The intervention group received a comprehensive intensive BP management strategy targeting a goal of less than 130/80 mm Hg. The strategy was designed to address barriers at multiple levels—health care systems, practitioners, patients, and communities—and was implemented by trained nonphysician community health care practitioners. These individuals underwent standardized training and operated under the supervision of primary care physicians. They were responsible for initiating and titrating antihypertensive therapy according to a streamlined, protocol-driven stepped-care algorithm. In addition to pharmacologic management, the intervention included structured health coaching focused on home BP monitoring, lifestyle modification, medication adherence, and control of cardiovascular risk factors. To improve treatment adherence, participants in the intervention group were also offered access to free or low-cost antihypertensive medications (eTable 2 in Supplement 2).

Baseline demographic data were collected via structured questionnaires, and sex was self-reported. Laboratory evaluations were conducted at both baseline and 36 months. Follow-up assessments occurred every 6 months and were performed by trained study staff. At each visit, BP was measured 3 times with participants seated and at rest for at least 5 minutes, in accordance with standardized protocols. Measurements were taken using an automated oscillometric device (Omron HBP-1100U [Omron Corp]), with appropriately sized cuffs selected based on arm circumference. BP data were transmitted in real time via mobile devices to the centralized study data center to ensure data fidelity.

Study Outcome

The primary clinical outcome was a composite of major cardiovascular events, comprising myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular death. Each component of this composite, as well as all-cause mortality, was also analyzed.

The primary safety outcome was defined as the occurrence of any adverse event of interest, including injurious falls, hypotension, syncope, ESKD or dialysis, a 50% or greater decline in eGFR among participants with CKD at baseline, or a 30% or greater decline in eGFR to less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m² among those without CKD at baseline.

Statistical Analysis

We performed intention-to-treat analyses to compare study outcomes between the intervention and control groups, based on village-level randomization and irrespective of individual adherence. The association of the intervention with outcomes was stratified by CKM syndrome stages, with potential heterogeneity of effect examined through testing the interactions of CKM syndrome × treatment on outcomes. To estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for cardiovascular events, marginal Cox models were used, with villages as random effects. To account for multiple testing across outcomes, we applied false discovery rate (FDR) correction to enhance the robustness of the results. In these models, sex, age, province, county, township, treatment group, CKM syndrome stage, and the interaction term for CKM syndrome stage and treatment were included as fixed effects, and a robust sandwich variance estimator was applied to account for clustering at the village level.

To evaluate the trade-off between benefit and harm, we conducted a quantitative benefit-harm analysis. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for cardiovascular outcomes was calculated as the difference in cumulative event incidence between the control and intervention groups. Conversely, the absolute risk increase (ARI) for adverse events was estimated similarly. First, preliminary weights for benefit and harm outcomes were derived from a structured patient preference survey conducted among individuals with hypertension by Johns Hopkins University and Kaiser Permanente Colorado.^21,22 These weights reflected patient-perceived severity, burden, and acceptability of various clinical outcomes. Second, a multidisciplinary expert panel consisting of 11 members, including cardiologists, neurologists, a nephrologist, an epidemiologist, a health policy expert, and patient representatives, reviewed and refined these initial weights to ensure clinical relevance and alignment with stakeholder perspectives. Third, a targeted literature review was conducted to validate the consistency of the selected weights with published estimates of outcome severity and patient values.^23,24,25 The final weights used in the net benefit analysis are detailed in eTable 3 in Supplement 2. Mean weights were calculated for the cardiovascular benefit end points and total adverse events of interest, resulting in a relative weight ratio of 1:3.6. Net clinical benefit was calculated as: Net Benefit = ARR − (ARI × weight).

We conducted several sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our findings. First, we used multivariable-adjusted Cox models adjusting for baseline covariates including age, sex, smoking status, antihypertensive medication use, history of CVD, diabetes, baseline systolic BP, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level. Second, a propensity score matching (PSM) strategy matched 16 465 intensive–usual care pairs (1:1 nearest-neighbor, without replacement) using age, sex, antihypertensive drug use, systolic and diastolic BP, diabetes status, body mass index, history of CVD, and LDL cholesterol level as matching factors; covariate balance was assessed by standardized mean differences, with values less than 0.1 indicating good balance. Third, we assessed alternative weighting schemes, including increasing the relative weight of harm and applying a 1:5 benefit-to-harm ratio. In addition, we plotted the estimated net benefit across a range of weight ratios (from 1:1 to 1:10) to visualize how different assumptions about benefit-harm preferences affected the results. Fourth, we applied a Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model to account for the competing risk of death.

All statistical tests were 2-sided, and P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were conducted using R version 4.2.0 (R Project for Statistical Computing).

Results

Baseline Characteristics

A total of 33 736 participants (mean [SD] age, 63.0 [9.2] years; 20 677 [61.3% women]) were included in this analysis, comprising 18 662 (55.2%) with CKM syndrome stage 2 (of whom 9526 [51.0%] received the intervention), 7984 (23.7%) with stage 3 (of whom 4032 [50.5%] received the intervention), and 7090 (21.0%) with stage 4 (of whom 3713 [52.4%] received the intervention) (Table 1). Compared with those with stage 2, participants in stages 3 and 4 were generally older, more often male, and more likely to be taking antihypertensive medications. They also had higher systolic BP, LDL cholesterol, fasting glucose, and uric acid levels as well as lower diastolic BP levels and eGFR. Within each CKM syndrome stage, baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the intensive and usual care groups. Table 1 summarizes the baseline characteristics of participants by CKM syndrome stage and intervention group.

Table 1. Baseline Characteristics by CKM Syndrome Stage of Participants.

Baseline characteristics	Participants, mean (SD)
	CKM syndrome stage 2		CKM syndrome stage 3		CKM syndrome stage 4
	Intervention (n = 9526)	Usual care (n = 9136)	Intervention (n = 4032)	Usual care (n = 3952)	Intervention (n = 3713)	Usual care (n = 3377)
Age, y	58.4 (7.4)	58.9 (7.4)	71.7 (6.7)	71.9 (6.9)	64.5 (8.0)	64.9 (8.1)
Sex, No. (%)
Female	6910 (72.5)	6727 (73.6)	1623 (40.3)	1587 (40.2)	1992 (53.6)	1838 (54.4)
Male	2616 (27.5)	2409 (26.4)	2409 (59.7)	2365 (59.8)	1721 (46.4)	1539 (45.6)
Education, No. (%)
Primary school or less	5823 (61.1)	5907(64.7)	2991 (74.2)	2907 (73.6)	2590 (69.8)	2414 (71.5)
Junior high school	3025 (31.8)	2643 (28.9)	850 (21.1)	876 (22.2)	926 (24.9)	765 (22.7)
High school	583 (6.1)	520 (5.7)	175 (4.3)	150 (3.8)	186 (5.0)	184 (5.4)
College or higher	95 (1.0)	66 (0.7)	16 (0.4)	19 (0.5)	11 (0.3)	14 (0.4)
Smoking, No. (%)
Never smoked	7564 (79.4)	7252 (79.4)	2190 (54.3)	2033 (51.4)	2393 (64.4)	2162 (64.0)
Former smokers	515 (5.4)	518 (5.7)	421 (10.4)	398 (10.1)	504 (13.6)	492 (14.6)
Current smokers	1447 (15.2)	1366 (15.0)	1421 (35.2)	1521 (38.5)	816 (22.0)	723 (21.4)
Weekly alcohol drinking, No. (%)	1478 (15.5)	1357 (14.9)	878 (21.8)	941 (23.8)	431 (11.6)	389 (11.5)
Physical activity ≥5 times/wk, No. (%)^a	5384 (56.5)	5279 (57.8)	1724 (42.8)	1761 (44.6)	1405 (37.8)	1256 (37.2)
Use of antihypertensive medications, No. (%)	5445 (57.2)	4624 (50.6)	2441 (60.5)	2111 (53.4)	2675 (72.0)	2240 (66.3)
Body mass index^b	26.5 (3.9)	26.3 (3.8)	25.1 (3.8)	24.9 (3.8)	25.8 (3.8)	25.7 (3.7)
Waist circumference, cm	89.6 (9.7)	88.9 (9.7)	88.4 (10.1)	87.5 (10.2)	89.5 (9.8)	88.9 (9.7)
Systolic blood pressure, mm Hg	154.0 (16.0)	152.7 (15.4)	163.5 (19.2)	162.2 (18.6)	157.3 (19.2)	155.2 (18.5)
Diastolic blood pressure, mm Hg	88.9 (10.3)	88.3 (10.0)	86.2 (11.3)	85.4 (11.3)	87.9 (10.9)	86.8 (10.8)
Total cholesterol, mg/dL	194.9 (37.9)	194.4 (37.7)	196.7 (39.7)	197.1 (40.4)	193.2 (42.3)	191 (41.5)
LDL cholesterol, mg/dL	103.6 (30.7)	103.5 (30.4)	107.3 (32.7)	107.4 (33.2)	105.2 (33.9)	103.4 (32.7)
HDL cholesterol, mg/dL	56.8 (13.4)	56.5 (13.1)	55.3 (14.0)	55.3 (14.0)	54.1 (12.8)	53.8 (12.8)
Triglycerides, median (IQR), mg/dL	141.7 (98.3-209.0)	139.9 (96.5-207.3)	128.4 (89.5-189.5)	125.8 (88.6-195.7)	139.9 (97.4-207.3)	134.6 (94.8-204.6)
Fasting plasma glucose, mg/dL	109 (34.1)	108.8 (34.0)	114.6 (40.2)	113.7 (37.9)	113.3 (38.9)	112.5 (37.1)
Uric acid, mg/dL	5.0 (1.5)	5.0 (1.4)	5.3 (1.4)	5.3 (1.4)	5.2 (1.4)	5.2 (1.4)
eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m²^c	96.5 (11.8)	95.8 (11.7)	84.6 (13.1)	84.1 (13.0)	90.0 (14.0)	89.6 (13.7)

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CKM, cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein.

SI conversion factors: To convert total, HDL, and LDL cholesterol to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0259; triglycerides to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0113; glucose to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0555; and uric acid to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0595.

^{^a}

Moderate or heavy physical activity for at least 30 minutes at a time.

^{^b}

Body mass index is calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared.

^{^c}

eGFR was calculated based on the 2021 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine equations.

BP During Follow-Up

As shown in eFigure 2 in Supplement 2, participants in the intervention groups experienced a more pronounced and sustained reduction in both systolic and diastolic BP across all CKM syndrome stages compared with those receiving usual care. By 36 months, net reductions in systolic BP ranged from 21.4 to 26.2 mm Hg and in diastolic BP from 9.8 to 9.9 mm Hg across CKM syndrome stages 2 to 4. Regarding antihypertensive medication use (eTable 4 in Supplement 2), participants in the intervention groups were more likely to receive treatment, particularly with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium channel blockers, across all CKM syndrome stages.

Clinical Outcomes

At a median follow-up of 3.02 years, intensive BP management was associated with significantly reduced risk of major cardiovascular events across all CKM syndrome stages. All interaction P values were greater than .05, indicating no evidence of heterogeneity across stages. The HRs were 0.61 (95% CI, 0.50-0.73) for stage 2, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.58-0.84) for stage 3, and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.58-0.76) for stage 4. All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the intervention group in stage 2 (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.90) and stage 3 (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.96) but not in stage 4 (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20) (Table 2). For individual cardiovascular outcomes, numerical differences across stages were observed, but none of the interaction tests were significant. Stroke risk declined consistently across stages (HRs of 0.61 [95% CI, 0.48-0.73], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.53-0.81], and 0.69 [95% CI, 0.58-0.79] for stages 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Cardiovascular mortality showed the largest relative reduction in stage 2 (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.25-0.66), with similar directions but 95% CIs that contained the null for stages 3 and 4. Kaplan-Meier curves confirmed these patterns across CKM syndrome stages (Figure; eFigures 3-6 in Supplement 2). The intraclass correlation coefficients were small for all outcomes within each CKM syndrome stage (eTable 5 in Supplement 2).

Table 2. Risk of Cardiovascular Outcomes and All-Cause Mortality Associated With Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment, According to CKM Syndrome Stages^a.

Outcomes	CKM syndrome stage 2		CKM syndrome stage 3		CKM syndrome stage 4		P for interaction
Outcomes	Hazard ratio (95%CI)	P value	Hazard ratio (95%CI)	P value	Hazard ratio (95%CI)	P value	P for interaction
Major cardiovascular outcomes	0.61 (0.50-0.73)	<.001	0.71 (0.58-0.84)	<.001	0.67 (0.58-0.76)	<.001	.53
Myocardial infarction	0.65 (0.31-0.98)	.15	1.00 (0.60-1.40)	.99	0.68 (0.38-0.99)	.15	.93
Stroke	0.61 (0.48-0.73)	<.001	0.67 (0.53-0.81)	<.001	0.69 (0.58-0.79)	<.001	.53
Heart failure	0.65 (0.12-1.18)	.45	0.80 (0.30-1.30)	.49	0.47 (0.21-0.74)	.03	.53
Death from cardiovascular causes	0.46 (0.25-0.66)	.002	0.76 (0.51-1.00)	.13	0.81 (0.58-1.04)	.14	.12
Death from all causes	0.73 (0.57-0.90)	.02	0.82 (0.68-0.96)	.04	1.02 (0.84-1.20)	.85	.10

Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: CKM, cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic.

^{^a}

The model adjusted for fixed effects including sex, age, province, county, township, treatment group, CKM syndrome stage, and the CKM syndrome stage × treatment interaction term, with village included as a random effect. P values were adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate method to account for multiple comparisons.

Adverse events were assessed across CKM syndrome stages (Table 3). Patterns of safety outcomes were broadly consistent across stages, with no statistically significant interactions. The incidence of hypotension was higher in all intervention groups compared to usual care, with RRs of 1.79 (95% CI, 1.31-2.26; P < .001) in stage 2, 2.34 (95% CI, 1.40-3.29; P < .001) in stage 3, and 2.23 (95% CI, 1.16-3.30; P = .001) in stage 4. Kidney adverse events were numerically higher in stage 3 (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04-2.01), but this association did not reach statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons (P = .06). The incidence of other adverse events, including injurious falls and syncope, was similar between groups across all stages.

Table 3. Safety and Kidney Outcomes Associated With Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment According to CKM Syndrome Stages^a.

Outcomes	CKM syndrome stage 2		CKM syndrome stage 3		CKM syndrome stage 4		P for interaction
Outcomes	Risk ratio (95%CI)	P value	Risk ratio (95%CI)	P value	Risk ratio (95%CI)	P value	P for interaction
Total adverse events of interest	1.28 (1.06-1.51)	.03	1.75 (1.31-2.19)	<.001	1.33 (1.01-1.66)	.03	.92
Injurious fall	0.98 (0.54-1.42)	.92	1.69 (0.64-2.74)	.30	0.91 (0.38-1.44)	.92	.66
Hypotension	1.79 (1.31-2.26)	<.001	2.34 (1.40-3.29)	<.001	2.23 (1.16-3.30)	.001	.66
Syncope	0.94 (0.36-1.53)	.86	1.10 (0.30-1.91)	.79	1.46 (0.40-2.53)	.31	.79
Kidney adverse events^b	1.03 (0.71-1.36)	.98	1.53 (1.04-2.01)	.06	1.05 (0.66-1.43)	.98	.66

Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: CKM, cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic.

^{^a}

^{^b}

Kidney adverse events included end-stage kidney disease or dialysis, a 50% or greater reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic kidney disease at baseline, or a 30% or greater reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate to less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m² in patients without chronic kidney disease at baseline.

Net Benefit Associated With Intensive Treatment

Intensive BP control led to ARRs in major cardiovascular events of 1.85% (95% CI, 1.81%-1.89%) in stage 2, 2.92% (95% CI, 2.82%-3.03%) in stage 3, and 2.45% (95% CI, 2.34%-2.55%) in stage 4 over the 3.02-year follow-up period, largely driven by a decline in stroke incidence (Table 4). At the same time, the ARIs in adverse events were 0.97% (95% CI, 0.94%-1.01%), 1.41% (95% CI, 1.33%-1.50%), and 1.07% (95% CI, 1.00%-1.14%), respectively. When combining both benefits and harms using weighted outcomes, the net clinical benefit remained positive across all CKM syndrome stages. The estimated net benefit values were 1.58 (95% CI, 1.53-1.62) in stage 2, 2.53 (95% CI, 2.42-2.64) in stage 3, and 2.15 (95% CI, 2.04-2.26) in stage 4.

Table 4. Net Benefit Associated With Intensive Treatment According to CKM Syndrome Stages^a.

Outcome	ARD
Outcome	CKM syndrome stage2	CKM syndrome stage3	CKM syndrome stage4
Benefit, ARR (95% CI), %
Major cardiovascular outcomes^b	1.85 (1.81-1.89)	2.92 (2.82-3.03)	2.45 (2.34-2.55)
Myocardial infarction	0.14 (0.13-0.15)	0.26 (0.24-0.28)	0.20 (0.18-0.22)
Stroke	1.58 (1.55-1.61)	2.29 (2.21-2.37)	2.02 (1.94-2.09)
Heart failure	0.13 (0.12-0.14)	0.29 (0.28-0.31)	0.21 (0.19-0.22)
Death from cardiovascular causes	0.31 (0.29-0.33)	0.87 (0.81-0.93)	0.55 (0.50-0.60)
Death from all causes	0.43 (0.39-0.47)	1.28 (1.08-1.48)	0.77 (0.61-0.93)
Harm, ARI (95% CI), %
Total adverse events of interest^c	0.97 (0.94-1.01)	1.41 (1.33-1.50)	1.07 (1.00-1.14)
Injurious fall	0.03 (0.03-0.05)	0.05 (0.04-0.06)	0.04 (0.03-0.05)
Hypotension	0.79 (0.77-0.82)	0.95 (0.91-0.99)	0.86 (0.83-0.89)
Syncope	0.02 (0.01-0.03)	0.05 (0.03-0.08)	0.29 (0.06-0.50)
Kidney adverse events^d	0.17 (0.15-0.19)	0.32 (0.27-0.38)	0.16 (0.12-0.20)
Benefit vs harm, ARD (95% CI)
Major cardiovascular outcomes vs total adverse events of interest	1.58 (1.53-1.62)	2.53 (2.42-2.64)	2.15 (2.04-2.26)

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: ARD, absolute risk difference; ARI, absolute risk increase; ARR, absolute risk reduction; CKM, cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic.

^{^a}

Weights were determined through a 3-step adjudication process, with 1 cardiovascular benefit equating to 3.6 total adverse events of interest. Net benefit was calculated as the absolute risk reduction minus the absolute risk increase × weights.

^{^b}

Major cardiovascular events included myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular death.

^{^c}

Total adverse events of interest included injurious fall, hypotension, syncope, and kidney adverse events.

^{^d}

Kidney adverse events included end-stage kidney disease or dialysis, a 50% or greater reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic kidney disease at baseline, or a 30% or greater reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate to <60 mL/min/1.73 m² in patients without chronic kidney disease at baseline.

Subgroup and Sensitivity Analyses

Forest plots demonstrated that results for both major cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality were consistent across all subgroups within each CKM syndrome stage (eFigures 7 and 8 in Supplement 2). We further evaluated net clinical benefit stratified by age, sex, and educational level (eFigure 9 in Supplement 2). In all CKM syndrome stages, participants aged 60 years and older and male participants were associated with greater net benefits compared with younger or female participants. Sensitivity analyses using multivariable adjustment, PSM, alternative 1:5 weighting, and a competing risk model yielded results consistent with the primary analysis (eTable 6 in Supplement 2). Across sensitivity analyses that varied the relative weighting between benefits and harms from 1:1 to 1:10, intensive BP control consistently yielded a positive net benefit across all CKM syndrome stages (eFigure 10 in Supplement 2).

Discussion

In this post hoc analysis of the CRHCP, we evaluated the stage-specific outcomes, safety, and net clinical benefit associated with intensive BP control among patients with CKM syndrome. Intensive control was associated with significantly reduced risk of major cardiovascular events across all CKM syndrome stages and showed consistent directional reductions in all-cause mortality, which reached statistical significance in stages 2 and 3, with no clear heterogeneity across CKM syndrome stages. Net benefit analyses revealed favorable benefit-to-harm results in all stages. To our knowledge, this is the first study to quantify the stage-specific clinical value of intensive BP management in the CKM syndrome population.

Prior studies have established CKM syndrome staging as a robust predictor of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality,^26,27,28 particularly in advanced stages (3-4), where event rates are substantially higher. These outcomes are driven by a multifactorial pathophysiology involving systemic inflammation,²⁹ metabolic dysregulation,^30,31 and adverse social and behavioral determinants.^26,32 While intensive BP lowering has shown cardiovascular benefit in patients with metabolic syndrome,^33,34,35 its risk-benefit profile across the spectrum of CKM syndrome had not been previously characterized to our knowledge. In this study, we addressed this gap by evaluating both efficacy and safety across CKM syndrome stages and by quantifying the overall net clinical benefit using an integrated benefit-to-harm framework, which showed consistently favorable results in all stages (1.58 in stage 2, 2.53 in stage 3, and 2.15 in stage 4). These findings provide a more nuanced basis for stage-informed, risk-adapted BP management in the expanding CKM syndrome population.

Interestingly, we observed notable differences across CKM syndrome stages in baseline characteristics. Participants in stage 3 were older and had higher systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and fasting glucose compared with other stages, consistent with prior population-based studies showing greater clustering of metabolic and kidney abnormalities in CKM syndrome stage 3.^32,36,37,38 These differences may reflect the distinct staging criteria, with stage 3 defined by predicted cardiometabolic risk and stage 4 by established CVD, and likely represent the accumulation of risk factors before overt clinical disease. Because stage 3 carried a higher burden and variability of risk factors, multivariable adjustment in sensitivity analyses modestly attenuated the effect estimates, although the overall direction of treatment benefit remained unchanged.

Although relative treatment effects were generally consistent across CKM syndrome stages, some variation in outcome patterns was observed. Prior studies have similarly shown comparable or even lower mortality in stage 3 relative to stage 4.^27,38 In our analysis, intensive BP control was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular events across all stages, while the mortality benefit reached statistical significance only in stages 2 and 3, likely reflecting differences in disease reversibility and competing non-CVD risks in more advanced stages. Stage-specific differences in end points, such as reduced CV death in stage 2 and lower heart failure incidence in stage 4, likely arise from different dominant mechanisms across the CKM syndrome continuum, with atherosclerotic event prevention being more prominent in earlier stages and hemodynamic or neurohormonal effects predominating in advanced CVD.^39,40

Intensive BP control is often associated with adverse effects, such as hypotension, syncope, electrolyte disturbances, and kidney impairment,^{33,41,42,43,44,45} with these risks particularly evident in individuals with diabetes, CKD, or metabolic syndrome. In our analysis, hypotension risk increased consistently across all CKM syndrome stages, whereas kidney adverse events tended to be higher in stage 3, likely reflecting greater hemodynamic sensitivity and reduced kidney autoregulatory reserve at this intermediate stage.⁴⁶ The RR for injurious falls was greater than 1 in stage 3 (although it did not reach statistical significance), possibly due to older age and increased susceptibility to orthostatic BP changes.⁴⁷ Despite these differences, the overall balance of benefits and harms remained favorable, supporting the broad applicability of intensive BP control across the CKM syndrome spectrum.

Current CKM syndrome management guidelines lack stage-specific evidence to guide BP-lowering strategies.^48,49 Our findings provide trial-based support for implementing intensive BP control across CKM syndrome stages through a risk-stratified net benefit approach. Notably, the intervention in this study was delivered by trained nonphysician practitioners within a community setting,¹⁴ underscoring its scalability and feasibility. This integrated, nonphysician-led model offers a pragmatic and sustainable framework for CKM syndrome management, especially in resource-limited settings. By linking emerging CKM syndrome staging frameworks with an actionable intervention, this study helps inform future clinical guidelines and health system strategies for multimorbid, high-risk populations.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, as a post hoc analysis of the CRHCP trial, residual confounding may exist despite adjustment strategies. Second, the operational definition of CKM syndrome staging was based on available clinical data and lacked imaging or biomarker-based validation,⁵⁰ which may affect stage classification accuracy. However, collecting such detailed data is often infeasible in large community-based trials. Similar definitions have been adopted in previous CKM syndrome–related population studies, ensuring comparability of our findings.^{27,28,30,32,36,37,38,51} Future studies incorporating imaging, biomarker, and mechanistic data are warranted to achieve more precise CKM syndrome staging. In addition, all study sites were rural primary care facilities with broadly similar diagnostic capacity. Therefore, the potential for systematic bias in CKM syndrome stage classification due to regional differences in diagnostic resources is considered low. Third, all participants had baseline hypertension, corresponding to at least stage 2 in the CKM syndrome framework, limiting our ability to evaluate earlier stages. Fourth, conducted in rural, resource-limited settings, this study provides a scalable model for intensive BP management that may be applicable to similar low-resource contexts globally. Nevertheless, caution is warranted when extrapolating these findings to high-resource or urban settings, where health system structures and patient characteristics may differ.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this is the first study of which we are aware to evaluate an intensive BP management strategy across clinically defined stages of CKM syndrome. A comprehensive, nonphysician-led intervention targeting BP levels less than 130/80 mm Hg was associated with significantly reduced risk of cardiovascular events at all CKM syndrome stages. Although certain adverse events were elevated, the overall net clinical benefit remained favorable. These findings provide the first trial-based, stage-specific evidence to inform CKM syndrome management and support scalable, clinical strategies for this high-risk, multimorbid population.

Supplement 1.

Trial Protocol

jamanetwopen-e2557180-s001.pdf^{(789.8KB, pdf)}

Supplement 2.

eTable 1. Framework for CKM Syndrome Staging in This Study

eTable 2. Intervention Strategies for Intervention Group and Usual Care Group

eTable 3. Weights of Benefit-Harm Trade-Off Outcomes in the Study

eTable 4. Types of Antihypertensive Medications Used in Participants Between Different Stages of CKM Syndrome

eTable 5. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients in Different CKM Stages

eTable 6. Sensitivity Analyses of Net Benefit

eFigure 1. Flowchart of the Study

eFigure 2. Blood Pressure Over the 36 Months of Follow-Ups in Patients With Different CKM Syndrome Stages

eFigure 3. Kaplan-Meier Curves for Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Different CKM Syndrome Stages

eFigure 4. Kaplan-Meier Curves for Stroke in Patients With Different CKM Syndrome Stages

eFigure 5. Kaplan-Meier Curves for Heart Failure in Patients With Different CKM Syndrome Stages

eFigure 6. Kaplan-Meier Curves for Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Different CKM Syndrome Stages

eFigure 7. Forest Plot of Major Cardiovascular Outcomes According to Subgroups in Participants With Different CKM Syndrome Stages

eFigure 8. Forest Plot of All-Cause Death According to Subgroups in Participants With Different CKM Syndrome Stages

eFigure 9. Forest Plot of Net Benefits According to Subgroups in Participants With Different CKM Syndrome Stages

eFigure 10. Net Benefit Analysis Comparing Intensive and Standard Blood Pressure Control With Different Weights for Harm Outcomes

jamanetwopen-e2557180-s002.pdf^{(1.8MB, pdf)}

Supplement 3.

Data Sharing Statement

jamanetwopen-e2557180-s003.pdf^{(17.8KB, pdf)}

References

1.Ndumele CE, Rangaswami J, Chow SL, et al. ; American Heart Association . Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2023;148(20):1606-1635. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Johansen KL, Chertow GM, Foley RN, et al. US Renal Data System 2020 Annual Data Report: epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;77(4)(suppl 1):A7-A8. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.01.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Virani SS, Alonso A, Benjamin EJ, et al. ; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee . Heart disease and stroke statistics–2020 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141(9):e139-e596. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Ahmad FB, Anderson RN. The leading causes of death in the US for 2020. JAMA. 2021;325(18):1829-1830. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.5469 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Kadowaki T, Maegawa H, Watada H, et al. Interconnection between cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic disorders: a narrative review with a focus on Japan. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022;24(12):2283-2296. doi: 10.1111/dom.14829 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Aggarwal R, Ostrominski JW, Vaduganathan M. Prevalence of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome stages in US Adults, 2011-2020. JAMA. 2024;331(21):1858-1860. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.6892 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Zheng C, Cai A, Sun M, et al. Prevalence and mortality of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome in China: a nationwide population-based study. JACC Asia. 2025;5(7):898-910. doi: 10.1016/j.jacasi.2025.04.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(19):e127-e248. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration . Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis. Lancet. 2021;397(10285):1625-1636. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00590-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Burnier M, Damianaki A. Hypertension as cardiovascular risk factor in chronic kidney disease. Circ Res. 2023;132(8):1050-1063. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.122.321762 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Zidek W, Naditch-Brûlé L, Perlini S, Farsang C, Kjeldsen SE. Blood pressure control and components of the metabolic syndrome: the GOOD survey. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2009;8:51. doi: 10.1186/1475-2840-8-51 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.McEvoy JW, McCarthy CP, Bruno RM, et al. ; ESC Scientific Document Group . 2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of elevated blood pressure and hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2024;45(38):3912-4018. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Mancia G, Kreutz R, Brunström M, et al. 2023 ESH guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension—The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension: Endorsed by the International Society of Hypertension (ISH) and the European Renal Association (ERA). J Hypertens. 2023;41(12):1874-2071. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000003480 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.He J, Ouyang N, Guo X, et al. ; CRHCP Study Group . Effectiveness of a non-physician community health-care provider-led intensive blood pressure intervention versus usual care on cardiovascular disease (CRHCP): an open-label, blinded-endpoint, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2023;401(10380):928-938. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02603-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Sun Y, Mu J, Wang DW, et al. ; CRHCP Study Group . A village doctor-led multifaceted intervention for blood pressure control in rural China: an open, cluster randomised trial. Lancet. 2022;399(10339):1964-1975. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00325-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Wright JT Jr, Williamson JD, Whelton PK, et al. ; SPRINT Research Group . A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2103-2116. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1511939 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Zhang W, Zhang S, Deng Y, et al. ; STEP Study Group . Trial of intensive blood-pressure control in older patients with hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(14):1268-1279. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2111437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Marassi M, Fadini GP. The cardio-renal-metabolic connection: a review of the evidence. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2023;22(1):195. doi: 10.1186/s12933-023-01937-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Suh S, Lee MK. Metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular diseases in Korea. J Atheroscler Thromb. 2014;21(suppl 1):S31-S35. doi: 10.5551/jat.21_Sup.1-S31 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Yim Y, Lee JE, Son Y, et al. Long-term trends in the prevalence of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome in South Korea, 2011-2021: a representative longitudinal serial study. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2025;55:101474. doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2025.101474 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Aschmann HE, Puhan MA, Robbins CW, et al. Outcome preferences of older people with multiple chronic conditions and hypertension: a cross-sectional survey using best-worst scaling. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):186. doi: 10.1186/s12955-019-1250-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Aschmann HE, Boyd CM, Robbins CW, et al. Balance of benefits and harms of different blood pressure targets in people with multiple chronic conditions: a quantitative benefit-harm assessment. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e028438. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Jamshidian MS, Scherzer R, Estrella MM, et al. Individualized net benefit of intensive blood pressure lowering among community-dwelling older adults in SPRINT. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2025;73(5):1441-1453. doi: 10.1111/jgs.19395 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Ascher SB, Kravitz RL, Scherzer R, et al. Incorporating individual-level treatment effects and outcome preferences into personalized blood pressure target recommendations. J Am Heart Assoc. 2024;13(16):e033995. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.033995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Dagan N, Cohen-Stavi CJ, Avgil Tsadok M, et al. Translating clinical trial results into personalized recommendations by considering multiple outcomes and subjective views. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:81. doi: 10.1038/s41746-019-0156-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Liu X, Zhang H, Li H, Xue F. Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome modifies smoking-related risk for cardiovascular diseases: findings from an observational cohort study in UK Biobank. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):1609. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-22865-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Li J, Wei X. Association of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a prospective cohort study. Am J Prev Cardiol. 2025;22:100985. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpc.2025.100985 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Claudel SE, Schmidt IM, Waikar SS, Verma A. Cumulative incidence of mortality associated with cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2025;36(7):1343-1351. doi: 10.1681/ASN.0000000637 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Xu Y. Association of neutrophil/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio with the cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome and its cardiovascular mortality. Front Nutr. 2025;12:1594041. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2025.1594041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Ding X, Tian J, Chang X, Liu J, Wang G. Association between remnant cholesterol and the risk of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome progression: insights from the China health and retirement longitudinal study. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2025;32(13):1157-1165. doi: 10.1093/eurjpc/zwaf248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Lu L, Chen Y, Liu B, et al. Association between cumulative changes of the triglyceride glucose index and incidence of stroke in a population with cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome stage 0-3: a nationwide prospective cohort study. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2025;24(1):202. doi: 10.1186/s12933-025-02754-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Zhu R, Wang R, He J, et al. Prevalence of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome stages by social determinants of health. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(11):e2445309. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.45309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Sun G, Guo X, Li G, et al. Intensive blood pressure strategy on cardiovascular diseases in patients with metabolic syndrome: post hoc analysis of a clinical trial. J Am Heart Assoc. 2025;14(6):e036820. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.036820 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Zheng W, Li S, Jiang C, et al. Effect of intensive blood pressure control and comorbidity status on the prognosis of patients with hypertension: insights from SPRINT. J Am Heart Assoc. 2025;14(6):e036719. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.036719 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Garfein J, Sekikawa A, Mrkva A, et al. Educational attainment and the effect of intensive blood pressure reduction: a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2025;14(11):e037712. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.037712 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Li M, Xu M, Ding Y, et al. Life’s Essential 8 cardiovascular health, cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome stages, and incident cardiovascular events: a nationwide 10-year prospective cohort study in China. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2025;24(1):197. doi: 10.1186/s12933-025-02735-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Li N, Li Y, Cui L, et al. Association between different stages of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome and the risk of all-cause mortality. Atherosclerosis. 2024;397:118585. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2024.118585 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Tsai MK, Kao JT, Wong CS, et al. Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS Med. 2025;22(6):e1004629. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Slivnick J, Lampert BC. Hypertension and heart failure. Heart Fail Clin. 2019;15(4):531-541. doi: 10.1016/j.hfc.2019.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Myhre PL, Selvaraj S, Solomon SD. Management of hypertension in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: is there a blood pressure goal? Curr Opin Cardiol. 2021;36(4):413-419. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000852 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Bress AP, Kramer H, Khatib R, et al. Potential deaths averted and serious adverse events incurred from adoption of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) intensive blood pressure regimen in the United States: projections from NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey). Circulation. 2017;135(17):1617-1628. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.025322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Bi Y, Li M, Liu Y, et al. ; BPROAD Research Group . Intensive blood-pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2025;392(12):1155-1167. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2412006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Aggarwal R, Steinkamp J, Chiu N, Petrie B, Mirzan H. Intensive blood pressure targets for diabetic and other high-risk populations: a pooled individual patient data analysis. Hypertension. 2018;71(5):833-839. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.10713 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Grassi G, Mancia G, Nilsson PM. Specific blood pressure targets for patients with diabetic nephropathy? Diabetes Care. 2016;39(suppl 2):S228-S233. doi: 10.2337/dcS15-3020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Tsai WC, Wu HY, Peng YS, et al. Association of intensive blood pressure control and kidney disease progression in nondiabetic patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(6):792-799. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Chen DC, McCallum W, Sarnak MJ, Ku E. Intensive BP control and eGFR declines: are these events due to hemodynamic effects and are changes reversible? Curr Cardiol Rep. 2020;22(10):117. doi: 10.1007/s11886-020-01365-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Mol A, Bui Hoang PTS, Sharmin S, et al. Orthostatic hypotension and falls in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019;20(5):589-597.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Ndumele CE, Neeland IJ, Tuttle KR, et al. ; American Heart Association . A synopsis of the evidence for the science and clinical management of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2023;148(20):1636-1664. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Claudel SE, Verma A. Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome: a step toward multidisciplinary and inclusive care. Cell Metab. 2023;35(12):2104-2106. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2023.10.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Larkin H. Here’s what to know about cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome, newly defined by the AHA. JAMA. 2023;330(21):2042-2043. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.22276 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Li J, Lei L, Wang W, et al. Social risk profile and cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome in US Adults. J Am Heart Assoc. 2024;13(16):e034996. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.034996 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials