BACKGROUND The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 9361 persons with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. The intervention was stopped early after a median follow-up of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (1.65% per year vs. 2.19% per year; hazard ratio with intensive treatment, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.90; P = 0.003). Rates of serious adverse events of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, and acute kidney injury or failure, but not of injurious falls, were higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause, although significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.)

In 1985, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) convened an ad hoc committee of experts who reviewed the current literature on lifting, recommend criteria for defining lifting capacity, and in 1991 developed a revised lifting equation. Subsequently, NIOSH developed the documentation for the equation and played a prominent role in recommending methods for interpreting the results of the equation. The 1991 equation reflects new findings and provides methods for evaluating asymmetrical lifting tasks, lifts of objects with less than optimal hand-container couplings, and also provides guidelines for a larger range of work durations and lifting frequencies than the 1981 equation. This paper provides the basis for selecting the three criteria (biomechanical, physiological, and psychophysical) that were used to define the 1991 equation, and describes the derivation of the individual components (Putz-Anderson and Waters 1991). The paper also describes the lifting index (LI), an index of relative physical stress, that can be used to identify hazardous lifting tasks. Although the 1991 equation has not been fully validated, the recommended weight limits derived from the revised equation are consistent with or lower than those generally reported in the literature. NIOSH believes that the revised 1991 lifting equation is more likely than the 1981 equation to protect most workers.

IMPORTANCE Controlling blood pressure (BP) reduces the risk for cardiovascular disease.

No abstract