Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 26;31(9):2122–2132. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2020010038

Table 4.

Effect of intensive BP target on cognitive impairment as a function of baseline eGFR and UACR

Outcome Intensive Treatment Standard Treatment Intensive versus Standard Interaction P Value
No. of Cases/Cases per 1000 PY No. of Cases/Cases per 1000 PY HR (95% CI)a
eGFR, ml/min per 1.73 m2
 Probable dementia 0.95
  eGFR ≥60 81/5.4 100/6.7 0.81 (0.61 to 1.10)
  eGFR <60 68/12.0 76/14.1 0.79 (0.56 to 1.11)
 MCI 0.04
  eGFR ≥60 170/11.8 244/17.1 0.71 (0.58 to 0.86)
  eGFR <60 117/22.1 109/21.7 1.00 (0.77 to 1.31)
 Probable dementia or MCI 0.12
  eGFR ≥60 237/16.4 307/21.4 0.77 (0.65 to 0.92)
  eGFR <60 165/30.6 162/31.6 0.96 (0.77 to 1.20)
UACR, mg/g
 Probable dementia 0.27
  UACR <30 101/6.3 125/7.8 0.78 (0.60 to 1.02)
  UACR ≥30 44/12.3 43/12.5 1.08 (0.69 to 1.68)
 MCI 0.43
  UACR <30 208/13.5 259/17.1 0.80 (0.67 to 0.96)
  UACR ≥30 72/21.5 74/23.1 0.89 (0.63 to 1.25)
 Probable dementia or MCI 0.10
  UACR <30 283/18.2 342/22.5 0.82 (0.70 to 0.96)
  UACR ≥30 108/31.7 101/31.0 1.04 (0.78 to 1.38)

PY person-years.

a

Intensive treatment group versus standard treatment group on the basis of Cox proportional hazards regression.