Home › Research › Disparities
Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control According to APOE ε4 Genotype: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT
Xu Y, Pruzin JJ, Greene T, Williamson J, Reboussin DM, Pajewski NM, Klein M, Yau W et al.. medRxiv, 2026-07-06
Topic: Genetics and APOE
Results Of 9,361 randomized participants, 8,390 (89.6%) had APOE genotyping (29% ε4 carriers); 7,733 (82.6%) had both genotype and outcome data (mean age, 68 years; 36% female; 28% Non-Hispanic Black). These findings may inform APOE ε4-stratified blood pressure management for dementia prevention. Findings In SPRINT, intensive vs standard SBP control yielded a significantly larger 4-year absolute risk reduction in dementia among APOE ε4 carriers (−1.7%) than non-carriers (0.2%; P-interaction = .045); the relative-scale interactions were directionally consistent but not significant.
Key findings
- Results Of 9,361 randomized participants, 8,390 (89.6%) had APOE genotyping (29% ε4 carriers); 7,733 (82.6%) had both genotype and outcome data (mean age, 68 years; 36% female; 28% Non-Hispanic Black).
- These findings may inform APOE ε4-stratified blood pressure management for dementia prevention.
- Findings In SPRINT, intensive vs standard SBP control yielded a significantly larger 4-year absolute risk reduction in dementia among APOE ε4 carriers (−1.7%) than non-carriers (0.2%; P-interaction = .045); the relative-scale interactions were directionally consistent but not significant.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Effect size89.6%; 82.6%; 1.7%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 50 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for sample size and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 31 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Xu, Y., Pruzin, J. J., Greene, T., Williamson, J., Reboussin, D. M., Pajewski, N. M., et al. (2026). Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control According to APOE ε4 Genotype: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.07.02.26357167
Vancouver
Xu Y, Pruzin JJ, Greene T, Williamson J, Reboussin DM, Pajewski NM, et al. Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control According to APOE ε4 Genotype: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.07.02.26357167.
BibTeX
@article{xu2026-e75ce35c,
author = {Xu, Y. and Pruzin, J. J. and Greene, T. and Williamson, J. and Reboussin, D. M. and Pajewski, N. M. and Klein, M. and Yau, W. and others},
title = {{Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control According to APOE ε4 Genotype: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.07.02.26357167},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.07.02.26357167}
}
Related studies in Disparities
Also tagged “metabolic-syndrome”
304 studies in the library carry the topic tag “metabolic-syndrome”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 304 tagged studies.