However, there are very few major trials and relatively few events in this meta-analysis. In contrast, Bavishi et al. included RCTs in a meta-analysis comparing intensive versus standard or less-intensive BP control in older adults ($65 years) and provided long-term CV and safety outcomes.113 SPRINT met the inclusion criteria for this review. There were reductions in major CV events, CV mortality, and heart failure (HF), but a possible increase in AKI and serious adverse events. No analysis of the older population with CKD was described in these studies. There is only one large study analyzing the effects of lower BP targets in CKD patients older than 75 years. A post hoc analysis of that speci c subgroup in SPRINT showed that the low BP target (SBP <120 mm Hg) reduced the primary CV outcome (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.45 0.92), all-cause death (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43 0.96), and the composite of primary CV disease outcome or all-cause death (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.49 There was no description of potential harm of achieving lower targets in this subgroup of older adults with CKD, although the risk bene t ratio in the entire CKD cohort and in the entire subcohort older than 75 years in SPRINT was favorable. Even in the age group 80 years and older, subgroup analysis in SPRINT showed that intensive BP lowering decreased the risk of CV events (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: Adults with diabetes and CKD. Among patients with concomitant diabetes and CKD, the bene ts of intensive BP lowering are less certain than those with CKD without dia- betes. All previous studies in diabetes with and without CKD have favored more, instead of less, intensive BP reduction ). In their meta-analysis, Ettehad et al. 