Published in

Oxford University Press, European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 16(26), p. 1693-1706, 2019

DOI: 10.1177/2047487319856733

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Phenomapping of subgroups in hypertensive patients using unsupervised data-driven cluster analysis: An exploratory study of the SPRINT trial

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Background Hypertensive patients are highly heterogeneous in cardiovascular prognosis and treatment responses. A better classification system with phenomapping of clinical features would be of greater value to identify patients at higher risk of developing cardiovascular outcomes and direct individual decision-making for antihypertensive treatment. Methods An unsupervised, data-driven cluster analysis was performed for all baseline variables related to cardiovascular outcomes and treatment responses in subjects from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), in order to identify distinct subgroups with maximal within-group similarities and between-group differences. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cardiovascular outcomes and compare the effect of intensive antihypertensive treatment in different clusters. Results Four replicable clusters of patients were identified: cluster 1 (index hypertensives); cluster 2 (chronic kidney disease hypertensives); cluster 3 (obese hypertensives) and cluster 4 (extra risky hypertensives). In terms of prognosis, individuals in cluster 4 had the highest risk of developing primary outcomes. In terms of treatment responses, intensive antihypertensive treatment was shown to be beneficial only in cluster 4 (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.98) and cluster 1 (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37–0.79) and was associated with an increased risk of severe adverse effects in cluster 2 (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05–1.32). Conclusion Using a data-driven approach, SPRINT subjects can be stratified into four phenotypically distinct subgroups with different profiles on cardiovascular prognoses and responses to intensive antihypertensive treatment. Of note, these results should be taken as hypothesis generating that warrant further validation in future prospective studies.