Association of 3 Different Antihypertensive Medications With Hip and Pelvic Fracture Risk in Older Adults: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: On the basis of observational studies, the use of thiazide diuretics for the treatment of hypertension is associated with reduced fracture risk compared with nonuse. Data from randomized clinical trials are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the use of thiazide diuretics for the treatment of hypertension is associated with reduced fracture risk compared with nonuse. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using Veterans Affairs and Medicare claims data, this study examined hip and pelvic fracture hospitalizations in Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial participants randomized to first-step therapy with a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besylate), or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril). Recruitment was from February 1994 to January 1998; in-trial follow-up ended in March 2002. The mean follow-up was 4.9 years. Posttrial follow-up was conducted through the end of 2006, using passive surveillance via national databases. For this secondary analysis, which used an intention-to-treat approach, data were analyzed from February 1, 1994, through December 31, 2006. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hip and pelvic fracture hospitalizations. RESULTS: A total of 22 180 participants (mean [SD] age, 70.4 [6.7] years; 43.0% female; and 49.9% white non-Hispanic, 31.2% African American, and 19.1% other ethnic groups) were followed for up to 8 years (mean [SD], 4.9 [1.5] years) during masked therapy. After trial completion, 16 622 participants for whom claims data were available were followed for up to 5 additional years (mean [SD] total follow-up, 7.8 [3.1] years). During the trial, 338 fractures occurred. Participants randomized to receive chlorthalidone vs amlodipine or lisinopril had a lower risk of fracture on adjusted analyses (hazards ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98; P = .04). Risk of fracture was significantly lower in participants randomized to receive chlorthalidone vs lisinopril (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98; P = .04) but not significantly different compared with those randomized to receive amlodipine (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63-1.08; P = .17). During the entire trial and posttrial period of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of fractures was nonsignificantly lower in participants randomized to receive chlorthalidone vs lisinopril or amlodipine (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.03; P = .10) and vs each medication separately. In sensitivity analyses, when 1 year after randomization was used as the baseline (to allow for the effects of medications on bone to take effect), similar results were obtained for in-trial and in-trial plus posttrial follow-up. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings from a large randomized clinical trial provide evidence of a beneficial effect of thiazide-type diuretic therapy in reducing hip and pelvic fracture risk compared with treatment with other antihypertensive medications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000542.

Association between chronic kidney disease and cancer mortality: A report from the ALLHAT.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and cancer are both common in older patients; whether CKD increases risk for cancer is unclear. This study evaluated CKD as a risk factor for cancer mortality in a large cohort of hypertensive patients. STUDY DESIGN: We did post-hoc analyses of in-trial and post-trial data from participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were ≥ 55 years old with hypertension and one other additional risk factor for coronary heart disease. PREDICTOR: Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). OUTCOMES: Cancer mortality was ascertained by cancer-related deaths reported in national databases during and after the trial. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for possible confounders and were stratified by baseline GFR. RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 66.9 years. After a mean follow-up of 8.9 years, there were 2,338 reported cancer-related deaths. Participants with GFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 were at increased risk of cancer mortality compared to those with GFR ≥ 90 mL/min/1.73 m2 (adjusted HR 1.54 (1.22 - 1.94), p-value for trend 0.004). These findings were consistent across subgroups defined by race, gender, and diabetes. Participants with GFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 were at higher risk for mortality related to colon cancer (p-value for trend 0.048, HR 2.28 (1.12 - 4.62)) and urinary tract cancer (p-value for trend 0.001, adjusted HR 2.95 (1.14 - 7.65)). LIMITATIONS: This is a post hoc analysis of clinical trial data. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of hypertensive patients, GFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 was associated with a higher risk of cancer-related mortality.

Visit-to-Visit Variability of Blood Pressure and Coronary Heart Disease, Stroke, Heart Failure, and Mortality: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Variability of blood pressure (BP) across outpatient visits is frequently dismissed as random fluctuation around a patient's underlying BP. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of visit-to-visit variability (VVV) of systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Post hoc analysis of ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial). PARTICIPANTS: 25 814 ALLHAT participants. MEASUREMENTS: The VVV of SBP was defined as the SD across SBP measurements obtained at 7 visits conducted from 6 to 28 months after ALLHAT enrollment. Participants without CVD events during the first 28 months of follow-up were followed from the 28-month visit through the end of active ALLHAT follow-up. Outcomes included fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) or nonfatal myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, stroke, and heart failure. RESULTS: During follow-up, 1194 fatal CHD or nonfatal MI events, 1948 deaths, 606 strokes, and 921 heart failure events occurred. After multivariable adjustment, including for mean SBP, the hazard ratio comparing participants in the highest versus lowest quintile of SD of SBP (≥14.4 mm Hg vs. <6.5 mm Hg) was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.06 to 1.59) for fatal CHD or nonfatal MI, 1.58 (CI, 1.32 to 1.90) for all-cause mortality, 1.46 (CI, 1.06 to 2.01) for stroke, and 1.25 (CI, 0.97 to 1.61) for heart failure. Higher VVV of diastolic BP was also associated with CVD events and mortality. LIMITATION: Long-term outcomes were not available. CONCLUSION: Higher VVV of SBP is associated with an increased risk for CVD and mortality. Future studies should examine whether reducing VVV of BP lowers this risk. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Pravastatin and cardiovascular outcomes stratified by baseline eGFR in the lipid- lowering component of ALLHAT.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The role of statins in preventing cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is unclear. This paper compares cardiovascular outcomes with pravastatin vs. usual care, stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). METHODS: Post-hoc analyses of a prospective randomized open-label clinical trial; 10,151 participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (lipid-lowering component) were randomized to pravastatin 40 mg/day or usual care. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years. RESULTS: Through Year 6, total cholesterol declined in pravastatin (-20.7%) and usualcare groups (-11.2%). Use of statin therapy in the pravastatin group was 89.8% (Year 2) and 87.0% (Year 6). Usual-care group statin use increased from 8.2% (Year 2) to 23.5% (Year 6). By primary intention-to-treat analyses, no significant differences were seen between groups for coronary heart disease (CHD), total mortality or combined cardiovascular disease; findings were consistent across eGFR strata. In exploratory "as-treated" analyses (patients actually using pravastatin vs. not using), pravastatin therapy was associated with lower mortality (HR = 0.76 (0.68 - 0.85), p<0.001) and lover CHD (HR=0.84 (0.73-0.97), p=0.01), but not combined cardiovascular disease (HR=0.95 (0.88-1.04), p=0.30). Total cholesterol reduction of 10 mg/dl from baseline to Year 2 was associated with 5% lower CHD risk. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with moderate dyslipidemia, pravastatin was not superior to usual care in preventing total mortality or CHD independent of baseline eGFR level. However, exploratory "as-treated" analyses suggest improved mortality and CHD risk in participants using pravastatin, and decreased CHD events associated with achieved reduction in total cholesterol. Potential benefit from statin therapy may depend on degree of reduction achieved in total and LDL-cholesterol and adherence to therapy.

Blood pressure control by drug group in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

Blood pressure (BP) control rates and number of antihypertensive medications were compared (average follow-up, 4.9 years) by randomized groups: chlorthalidone, 12.5-25 mg/d (n=15,255), amlodipine 2.5-10 mg/d (n=9048), or lisinopril 10-40 mg/d (n=9054) in a randomized double-blind hypertension trial. Participants were hypertensives aged 55 or older with additional cardiovascular risk factor(s), recruited from 623 centers. Additional agents from other classes were added as needed to achieve BP control. BP was reduced from 145/83 mm Hg (27% control) to 134/76 mm Hg (chlorthalidone, 68% control), 135/75 mm Hg (amlodipine, 66% control), and 136/76 mm Hg (lisinopril, 61% control) by 5 years; the mean number of drugs prescribed was 1.9, 2.0, and 2.1, respectively. Only 28% (chlorthalidone), 24% (amlodipine), and 24% (lisinopril) were controlled on monotherapy. BP control was achieved in the majority of each randomized group-a greater proportion with chlorthalidone. Over time, providers and patients should expect multidrug therapy to achieve BP <140/90 mm Hg in a majority of patients.

Progression of kidney disease in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin versus usual care: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

BACKGROUND: Dyslipidemia is common in patients with chronic kidney disease. The role of statin therapy in the progression of kidney disease is unclear. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized clinical trial, post hoc analyses. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 10,060 participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (lipid-lowering component) stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): less than 60, 60 to 89, and 90 or greater mL/min/1.73 m(2). Mean follow-up was 4.8 years. INTERVENTION: Randomized; pravastatin, 40 mg/d, or usual care. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: Total, high-density lipoprotein, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; end-stage renal disease (ESRD), eGFR. RESULTS: Through year 6, total cholesterol levels decreased in the pravastatin (-20.7%) and usual-care groups (-11.2%). No significant differences were seen between groups for rates of ESRD (1.36 v 1.45/100 patient-years; P = 0.9), composite end points of ESRD and 50% or 25% decrease in eGFR, or rate of change in eGFR. Findings were consistent across eGFR strata. In patients with eGFR of 90 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or greater, the pravastatin arm tended to have a higher eGFR. LIMITATIONS: Proteinuria data unavailable, post hoc analyses, unconfirmed validity of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation in normal eGFR range, statin drop-in rate in usual-care group with small cholesterol differential between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with moderate dyslipidemia and decreased eGFR, pravastatin was not superior to usual care in preventing clinical renal outcomes. This was consistent across the strata of baseline eGFR. However, benefit from statin therapy may depend on the degree of the cholesterol level decrease achieved.

Clinical outcomes by race in hypertensive patients with and without the metabolic syndrome: Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive drugs with favorable metabolic effects are advocated for first-line therapy in hypertensive patients with metabolic/cardiometabolic syndrome (MetS). We compared outcomes by race in hypertensive individuals with and without MetS treated with a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besylate), an alpha-blocker (doxazosin mesylate), or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril). METHODS: A subgroup analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a randomized, double-blind hypertension treatment trial of 42 418 participants. We defined MetS as hypertension plus at least 2 of the following: fasting serum glucose level of at least 100 mg/dL, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of at least 30, fasting triglyceride levels of at least 150 mg/dL, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of less than 40 mg/dL in men or less than 50 mg/dL in women. RESULTS: Significantly higher rates of heart failure were consistent across all treatment comparisons in those with MetS. Relative risks (RRs) were 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.90), 1.49 (1.17-1.90), and 1.88 (1.42-2.47) in black participants and 1.25 (1.06-1.47), 1.20 (1.01-1.41), and 1.82 (1.51-2.19) in nonblack participants for amlodipine, lisinopril, and doxazosin comparisons with chlorthalidone, respectively. Higher rates for combined cardiovascular disease were observed with lisinopril-chlorthalidone (RRs, 1.24 [1.09-1.40] and 1.10 [1.02-1.19], respectively) and doxazosin-chlorthalidone comparisons (RRs, 1.37 [1.19-1.58] and 1.18 [1.08-1.30], respectively) in black and nonblack participants with MetS. Higher rates of stroke were seen in black participants only (RR, 1.37 [1.07-1.76] for the lisinopril-chlorthalidone comparison, and RR, 1.49 [1.09-2.03] for the doxazosin-chlorthalidone comparison). Black patients with MetS also had higher rates of end-stage renal disease (RR, 1.70 [1.13-2.55]) with lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone. CONCLUSIONS: The ALLHAT findings fail to support the preference for calcium channel blockers, alpha-blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors compared with thiazide-type diuretics in patients with the MetS, despite their more favorable metabolic profiles. This was particularly true for black participants.

Cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients stratified by baseline glomerular filtration rate.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease is common in older patients with hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of coronary heart disease (CHD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) events; to determine whether glomerular filtration rate (GFR) independently predicts risk for CHD; and to report the efficacy of first-step treatment with a calcium-channel blocker (amlodipine) or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), each compared with a diuretic (chlorthalidone), in modifying cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in high-risk patients with hypertension stratified by GFR. DESIGN: Post hoc subgroup analysis. SETTING: Multicenter randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Persons with hypertension who were 55 years of age or older with 1 or more risk factors for CHD and who were stratified into 3 baseline GFR groups: normal or increased (> or = 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2; n = 8126 patients), mild reduction (60 to 89 mL/min per 1.73 m2; n = 18,109 patients), and moderate or severe reduction (< 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2; n = 5662 patients). INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of ESRD, CHD, stroke, and combined CVD (CHD, coronary revascularization, angina, stroke, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease). RESULTS: In participants with a moderate to severe reduction in GFR, 6-year rates were higher for CHD than for ESRD (15.4% vs. 6.0%, respectively). A baseline GFR of less than 53 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (compared with >104 mL/min per 1.73 m2) was independently associated with a 32% higher risk for CHD. Amlodipine was similar to chlorthalidone in reducing CHD (16.0% vs. 15.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.27]), stroke, and combined CVD (CHD, coronary revascularization, angina, stroke, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease), but less effective in preventing heart failure. Lisinopril was similar to chlorthalidone in preventing CHD (15.1% vs. 15.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.00 [CI, 0.84 to 1.20]), but was less effective in reducing stroke, combined CVD events, and heart failure. LIMITATIONS: Proteinuria data were not available, and combination therapies were not tested. CONCLUSIONS: Older high-risk patients with hypertension and reduced GFR are more likely to develop CHD than to develop ESRD. A low GFR independently predicts increased risk for CHD. Neither amlodipine nor lisinopril is superior to chlorthalidone in preventing CHD, stroke, or combined CVD, and chlorthalidone is superior to both for preventing heart failure, independent of level of renal function.

Clinical outcomes in antihypertensive treatment of type 2 diabetes, impaired fasting glucose concentration, and normoglycemia: Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

BACKGROUND: Optimal first-step antihypertensive drug therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) or impaired fasting glucose levels (IFG) is uncertain. We wished to determine whether treatment with a calcium channel blocker or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor decreases clinical complications compared with treatment with a thiazide-type diuretic in DM, IFG, and normoglycemia (NG). METHODS: Active-controlled trial in 31 512 adults, 55 years or older, with hypertension and at least 1 other risk factor for coronary heart disease, stratified into DM (n = 13 101), IFG (n = 1399), and NG (n = 17 012) groups on the basis of national guidelines. Participants were randomly assigned to double-blind first-step treatment with chlorthalidone, 12.5 to 25 mg/d, amlodipine besylate, 2.5 to 10 mg/d, or lisinopril, 10 to 40 mg/d. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis of fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction (primary outcome), total mortality, and other clinical complications. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in relative risk (RR) for the primary outcome in DM or NG participants assigned to amlodipine or lisinopril vs chlorthalidone or in IFG participants assigned to lisinopril vs chlorthalidone. A significantly higher RR (95% confidence interval) was noted for the primary outcome in IFG participants assigned to amlodipine vs chlorthalidone (1.73 [1.10-2.72]). Stroke was more common in NG participants assigned to lisinopril vs chlorthalidone (1.31 [1.10-1.57]). Heart failure was more common in DM and NG participants assigned to amlodipine (1.39 [1.22-1.59] and 1.30 [1.12-1.51], respectively) or lisinopril (1.15 [1.00-1.32] and 1.19 [1.02-1.39], respectively) vs chlorthalidone. CONCLUSION: Our results provide no evidence of superiority for treatment with calcium channel blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors compared with a thiazide-type diuretic during first-step antihypertensive therapy in DM, IFG, or NG.

Renal outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or a calcium channel blocker vs a diuretic: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to determine whether, in high-risk hypertensive patients with a reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR), treatment with a calcium channel blocker or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lowers the incidence of renal disease outcomes compared with treatment with a diuretic. METHODS: We conducted post hoc analyses of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Hypertensive participants 55 years or older with at least 1 other coronary heart disease risk factor were randomized to receive chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril for a mean of 4.9 years. Renal outcomes were incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and/or a decrement in GFR of 50% or more from baseline. Baseline GFR, estimated by the simplified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation, was stratified into normal or increased (> or =90 mL /min per 1.73 m(2), n = 8126), mild reduction (60-89 mL /min per 1.73 m(2), n = 18 109), or moderate-severe reduction (<60 mL /min per 1.73 m(2), n = 5662) in GFR. Each stratum was analyzed for effects of the treatments on outcomes. RESULTS: In 448 participants, ESRD developed. Compared with patients taking chlorthalidone, no significant differences occurred in the incidence of ESRD in patients taking amlodipine in the mild (relative risk [RR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-2.23) or moderate-severe (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68-1.24) reduction in GFR groups. Compared with patients taking chlorthalidone, no significant differences occurred in the incidence of ESRD in patients taking lisinopril in the mild (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.87-2.06) or moderate-severe (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.73-1.31) reduction in GFR groups. In patients with mild and moderate-severe reduction in GFR, the incidence of ESRD or 50% or greater decrement in GFR was not significantly different in patients treated with chlorthalidone compared with those treated with amlodipine (odds ratios, 0.96 [P = .74] and 0.85 [P = .23], respectively) and lisinopril (odds ratios, 1.13 [P = .31] and 1.00 [P = .98], respectively). No difference in treatment effects occurred for either end point for patients taking amlodipine or lisinopril compared with those taking chlorthalidone across the 3 GFR subgroups, either for the total group or for participants with diabetes at baseline. At 4 years of follow-up, estimated GFR was 3 to 6 mL /min per 1.73 m(2) higher in patients assigned to receive amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone, depending on baseline GFR stratum. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with reduced GFR, neither amlodipine nor lisinopril was superior to chlorthalidone in reducing the rate of development of ESRD or a 50% or greater decrement in GFR. Participants assigned to receive amlodipine had a higher GFR than those assigned to receive chlorthalidone, but rates of development of ESRD were not different between the groups.