However, a more detailed combined analysis of data from ACCORD and SPRINT found that the bene cial effects of intensive SBP control (with both trials targeting <120 mm Hg) on combined CV endpoints and on all-cause mortality were similar in the standard glycemia arm of ACCORD and in SPRINT.122,123 In contrast, intensive SBP control increased CV death, HF, and MI in the intensive glycemia arm. These interactions lessened after discontinua- tion of the glycemic intervention.122 In another post hoc analysis among ACCORD participants in the standard gly- cemia arm who had additional CV risk factors that would have met the SPRINT inclusion criteria, intensive BP control provided CV bene ts similar to those seen in SPRINT.124 Similarly, a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 4983 patients with CKD from AASK, MDRD, ACCORD, and SPRINT found a non-signi cant trend to decreased mortality with intensive BP-lowering therapy, but a statistically signif- icant reduction in mortality in a subgroup with eGFR <60 who were not assigned to intensive gly- Collectively, these aforementioned post hoc analyses support the notion that intensive BP control im- proves clinical outcomes even in patients with diabetes and CKD, but glycemic control modulates the effects of intensive BP control on CV outcomes. This evidence is indirect, hence diminishing the certainty of the bene ts and strength of recommendation of targeting SBP <120 mm Hg. Low diastolic blood pressure. 