SPRINT Challenge Winning Submissions

NEJM congratulates the winners selected from
143 entries worldwide

The goal for the SPRINT Challenge was to explore what could be achieved by sharing clinical trial data, and to bring trialists, data analysts and patients together for a constructive conversation. In response, the research community actively engaged with the SPRINT Challenge — resulting in more than 16,000 SPRINT Challenge followers and 200 qualifying teams. Of those who qualified, 143 submitted Challenge Round entries that identified a novel scientific or clinical finding from making use of the SPRINT dataset underlying the NEJM article.

All 143 entries were reviewed by a multidisciplinary panel of expert judges, selected to represent those closest to the issues: patients, trialists, and analysts. Submissions were reviewed by three experts, each of whom represents one of these three constituencies. The judges’ combined score represents 90 percent and crowd voting by the SPRINT Challenge followers represents the remaining 10 percent.

We are pleased to present the top entries who will have the opportunity to present their findings at the Aligning Incentives for Sharing Clinical Trial Data summit and web event on April 3–4, 2017. Learn more about the web event here.

Don't forget, to view the live webcast of the winners’ presentations, register today at events.nejm.org and mark your calendar for 1:45 pm (ET) on April 3, 2017.

 

FIRST PLACE

Noa Dagan, MD, MPH

Clalit Research Institute, Tel Aviv, Israel

Team members: Meytal Avgil Tsadok, Moshe Hoshen, Amichay Akriv, Tomas Karpati, Ilan Gofer, Morton Leibowitz, Harel Gilutz, Eduardo Podjarny, Eitan Bachmat, Ran Balicer 

 

To Treat Intensively or Not — Individualized Decision Making Support Tool

In the era of personalized medicine, population-based treatment efficacy measures are not sufficient. Treatment decisions should be personalized by considering the individual's specific characteristics, taking multiple outcomes into account, and not overlooking adverse events. We created a personalized tool to support clinicians when deciding on intensive hypertension treatment. This tool considers predicted benefits and harms, weighted by the perceived severity of the events they represent, thus allowing for an efficient, personalized, and evidence-based decision.

 

SECOND PLACE

Rahul Aggarwal

Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA

Team name: Renality Check

Team members: Nicholas Chiu, Sang Myung Han,
Haares Mirzan, Jason Park, Ben Petrie, Jackson Steinkamp

Assessing the Impact of Intensive Blood Pressure Management in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients

We analyzed findings from the largest trial of intensive blood pressure management in patients with chronic kidney disease. First, BP is harder to manage intensively in this population. Second, primary outcomes are not improved by intensive as compared with standard BP management in CKD patients. Third, in CKD patients, intensive management is associated with a higher risk of therapy-related adverse events. Therefore, our study cautions physicians against applying the SPRINT-recommended intensive systolic BP target of <120 mm Hg to CKD patients.

 

THIRD PLACE

Sanjay Basu, MD, PhD

Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Team members: Brian Denton, Rodney Hayward,
Joseph Rigdon, Lauren Steimle, Jeremy Sussman

 

Development and Validation of a Clinical Decision Score to Maximize Benefit and Minimize Harm from Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment

Intensive blood pressure treatment can reduce the chance of having a heart attack, stroke, or other major cardiovascular illness, but it may increase the risk of a serious adverse event, such as kidney failure. We developed and validated a clinical decision score to identify patients likely to experience benefits and unlikely to experience harms when undergoing intensive treatment. The score was developed from SPRINT trial data and tested using both SPRINT and ACCORD-BP trial data.