Home › Research › Prevention and risk
Long-Term Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control on Mild Cognitive Impairment and Probable Dementia in SPRINT
Reboussin DM, Gaussoin SA, Pajewski NM, Jaeger BC, Sachs B, Rapp SR, Supiano MA, Cleveland ML, Hunter V, Demons JL, Ogrocki PK, Lerner AJ, Chelune GJ, Wadley VG, Scales ML, Woolard NF, Perdue LH, Callahan KE, Williamson JD. Neurology, 2025-02-11
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
This long-term follow-up of the SPRINT randomized trial tested whether intensively lowering systolic blood pressure (to below 120, vs. the standard target of below 140) reduces the risk of thinking problems in adults 50+ with hypertension. Over a median 7 years, intensive treatment significantly reduced mild cognitive impairment and the combined outcome of MCI-or-dementia, but the reduction in probable dementia alone did not reach statistical significance on its own.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Reboussin, D. M., Gaussoin, S. A., Pajewski, N. M., Jaeger, B. C., Sachs, B., Rapp, SR., et al. (2025). Long-Term Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control on Mild Cognitive Impairment and Probable Dementia in SPRINT. Neurology.
Vancouver
Reboussin DM, Gaussoin SA, Pajewski NM, Jaeger BC, Sachs B, Rapp SR, et al. Long-Term Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control on Mild Cognitive Impairment and Probable Dementia in SPRINT. Neurology. 2025. PMID: 39819096.
BibTeX
@article{reboussin2025-d972d843,
author = {Reboussin, D. M. and Gaussoin, S. A. and Pajewski, N. M. and Jaeger, B. C. and Sachs, B. and Rapp, SR. and Supiano, M. A. and Cleveland, M. L. and Hunter, V. and Demons, J. L. and Ogrocki, P. K. and Lerner, A. J. and Chelune, G. J. and Wadley, V. G. and Scales, M. L. and Woolard, N. F. and Perdue, L. H. and Callahan, K. E. and Williamson, J. D.},
title = {{Long-Term Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control on Mild Cognitive Impairment and Probable Dementia in SPRINT}},
journal = {Neurology},
year = {2025},
pmid = {39819096}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 19 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- 9,361 participants randomized; 4,232 completed long-term cognitive assessment over median 7-year follow-up
- Probable dementia: 8.5 vs 10.2 cases per 1,000 person-years in intensive vs standard groups (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72-1.02, not statistically significant alone)
- Mild cognitive impairment: HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.76-1.00)
- Composite MCI-or-probable-dementia: HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.79-0.99), a statistically significant reduction
Why it matters
Intensively lowering systolic blood pressure below 120 reduced the combined outcome of mild cognitive impairment or probable dementia, but the reduction in probable dementia alone was not statistically significant. This suggests tighter blood pressure control may help prevent milder thinking problems in people with hypertension, though it did not clearly prevent dementia by itself.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designRCT
- Participants9,361
- Effect sizeProbable dementia: 8.5 vs. 10.2 per 1,000 person-years (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72-1.02); MCI: HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.76-1.00); composite MCI-or-dementia: HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.79-0.99)
- Evidence strengthModerate
Limitations
The dementia-alone endpoint did not reach statistical significance on its own (95% CI crossed 1.0); only about 45% of the original cohort completed long-term cognitive follow-up, raising attrition-bias concerns.
How this study scored 76/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for indexed in PubMed because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 47 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 9,361 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| 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 | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 47 / 62 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100. |
| Total | 76 / 100 | — |
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.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 13.
Related studies in Prevention and risk
Also tagged “controlled”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.