Edoxaban Plus Aspirin vs Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Endovascular Treatment of Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease: Results of the ePAD Trial.

PURPOSE: To report a randomized study that investigated the safety (risk of major bleeds) and potential efficacy of edoxaban, an oral anticoagulant that targets the major components of arterial thrombi, to prevent loss of patency following endovascular treatment (EVT). METHODS: Between February 2012 and June 2014, 203 patients who underwent femoropopliteal EVT were randomized to receive aspirin plus edoxaban or aspirin plus clopidogrel for 3 months in the Edoxaban in Peripheral Arterial Disease (ePAD) study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01802775). Randomization assigned 101 patients (mean age 68.0±10.4 years; 67 men) to the edoxaban group and 102 patients (mean age 66.7±8.6 years; 78 men) to the clopidogrel group. The primary safety endpoint was bleeding as classified by the TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) criteria and ISTH (International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis) criteria; the efficacy endpoint was the rate of restenosis/reocclusion. RESULTS: There were no major or life-threatening bleeding events in the edoxaban group, while there were 2 major and 2 life-threatening bleeding events in the clopidogrel group by the TIMI criteria. By the ISTH classification, there was 1 major and 1 life-threatening bleeding event vs 5 major and 2 life-threatening bleeding events, respectively [relative risk (RR) 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.70]. The bleeding risk was not statistically different with either treatment when assessed by TIMI or ISTH. Following 6 months of observation, there was a lower incidence of restenosis/reocclusion with edoxaban compared with clopidogrel (30.9% vs 34.7%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34, p=0.643). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that patients who have undergone EVT have similar risks for major and life-threatening bleeding events with edoxaban and aspirin compared with clopidogrel and aspirin. The incidence of restenosis/reocclusion events, while not statistically different, was lower with edoxaban and aspirin, but an adequately sized trial will be needed to confirm these findings.

A review of antithrombotic therapy and the rationale and design of the randomized edoxaban in patients with peripheral artery disease (ePAD) trial adding edoxaban or clopidogrel to aspirin after femoropopliteal endovascular intervention.

Compared with the coronary setting, knowledge about antithrombotic therapies after endovascular treatment (EVT) is inadequate in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Based on a review of trials and guidelines, which is summarized in this article, there is scant evidence that antithrombotic drugs improve outcome after peripheral EVT. To address this knowledge gap, the randomized, open-label, multinational edoxaban in patients with Peripheral Artery Disease (ePAD) study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01802775) was designed to explore the safety and efficacy of a combined regimen of antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and anticoagulation with edoxaban, a selective and direct factor Xa inhibitor, both combined with aspirin. As of July 2014, 203 patients (144 men; mean age 67 years) from 7 countries have been enrolled. These patients have been allocated to once-daily edoxaban [60 mg for 3 months (or 30 mg in the presence of factors associated with increased exposure)] or clopidogrel (75 mg/d for 3 months). All patients received aspirin (100 mg/d) for the 6-month duration of the study. The primary safety endpoint is major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding; the primary efficacy endpoint is restenosis or reocclusion at the treated segment(s) measured at 1, 3, and 6 months using duplex ultrasound scanning. All outcomes will be assessed and adjudicated centrally in a masked fashion. The ePAD study is the first of its kind to investigate a combined regimen of antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation through factor Xa inhibition with edoxaban.

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter phase 2 study of prasugrel versus placebo in adult patients with sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Platelet activation has been implicated in the pathogenesis of sickle cell disease (SCD) suggesting antiplatelet agents may be therapeutic. To evaluate the safety of prasugrel, a thienopyridine antiplatelet agent, in adult patients with SCD, we conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. METHODS: The primary endpoint, safety, was measured by hemorrhagic events requiring medical intervention. Patients were randomized to prasugrel 5 mg daily (n = 41) or placebo (n = 21) for 30 days. Platelet function by VerifyNow® P2Y12 and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein assays at days 10 and 30 were significantly inhibited in prasugrel- compared with placebo-treated SCD patients. RESULTS: There were no hemorrhagic events requiring medical intervention in either study arm. Mean pain rate (percentage of days with pain) and intensity in the prasugrel arm were decreased compared with placebo. However, these decreases did not reach statistical significance. Platelet surface P-selectin and plasma soluble P-selectin, biomarkers of in vivo platelet activation, were significantly reduced in SCD patients receiving prasugrel compared with placebo. In sum, prasugrel was well tolerated and not associated with serious hemorrhagic events. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the small size and short duration of this study, there was a decrease in platelet activation biomarkers and a trend toward decreased pain.

Rationale and design of the TAXUS Liberte Post-Approval Study: examination of patients receiving the TAXUS Liberté stent with concomitant prasugrel therapy in routine interventional cardiology practice.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies of new coronary stents are necessary to assess performance in a variety of complex patient and lesion types. Furthermore, the optimal dose and duration of thienopyridine treatment is unclear, particularly in patients with complex clinical conditions. The TAXUS Liberte Post-Approval Study is designed to provide 5-year data on the TAXUS Liberté paclitaxel-eluting stent with concomitant prasugrel therapy in routine clinical practice and to contribute data to the DAPT study. STUDY DESIGN: The TAXUS Liberte Post-Approval Study is a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Enrollment of approximately 4,200 patients receiving ≥1 TAXUS Liberté stents is planned. All patients without a contraindication will be prescribed prasugrel plus aspirin for 1 year. The 12-month primary end point of cardiac death or myocardial infarction in on-label stent patients will be compared with historical TAXUS Express stent data from the TAXUS ATLAS and TAXUS ARRIVE studies. Secondary clinical end points include stent thrombosis, all-cause death, stroke, revascularization, and bleeding in all patients. In addition, this study will be the first to evaluate prasugrel use in a routine practice setting (including 5 and 10 mg daily doses) and will contribute data to the DAPT Study, comparing 12 versus 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent placement. SUMMARY: The TAXUS Liberte Post-Approval Study will be the first to provide long-term real-world data on use of the TAXUS Liberté Stent with prasugrel treatment. The study is currently enrolling, and primary end point data are expected in mid 2013.

Cost-effectiveness of chlorthalidone, amlodipine, and lisinopril as first-step treatment for patients with hypertension: an analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for hypertension. BACKGROUND: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) found that first-line treatment with lisinopril or amlodipine was not significantly superior to chlorthalidone in terms of the primary endpoint, so differences in costs may be critical for optimizing decision-making. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using bootstrap resampling to evaluate uncertainty. RESULTS: Over a patient's lifetime, chlorthalidone was always least expensive (mean $4,802 less than amlodipine, $3,700 less than lisinopril). Amlodipine provided more life-years (LYs) than chlorthalidone in 84% of bootstrap samples (mean 37 days) at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $48,400 per LY gained. Lisinopril provided fewer LYs than chlorthalidone in 55% of bootstrap samples (mean 7-day loss) despite a higher cost. At a threshold of $50,000 per LY gained, amlodipine was preferred in 50%, chlorthalidone in 40%, and lisinopril in 10% of bootstrap samples, but these findings were highly sensitive to the cost of amlodipine and the cost-effectiveness threshold chosen. Incorporating quality of life did not appreciably alter the results. Overall, no reasonable combination of assumptions led to 1 treatment being preferred in over 90% of bootstrap samples. CONCLUSIONS: Initial treatment with chlorthalidone is less expensive than lisinopril or amlodipine, but amlodipine provided a nonsignificantly greater survival benefit and may be a cost-effective alternative. A randomized trial with power to exclude "clinically important" differences in survival will often have inadequate power to determine the most cost-effective treatment.

Management of high blood pressure in clinical practice: perceptible qualitative differences in approaches utilized by clinicians.

The authors recruited a group of physicians from among the investigators participating in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) with a greater (more successful) or lesser (less successful) proportion of trial patients meeting blood pressure (BP) control goals. The authors utilized qualitative focus group methods to identify similarities and differences in practice behaviors. Successful and less successful physicians had similarities in knowledge and practice behaviors regarding awareness of treatment guidelines, approaches to diagnosis, use of pharmacologic management, and the opinion that systolic BP guidelines should consider a patient's age. However, there were discernible differences between the two physician groups in their views on doctor-patient relationships: physicians from the less successful group were more paternalistic with their patients, while physicians from the more successful group were more likely to use a patient-centered clinical approach to BP awareness and management.

Metabolic and clinical outcomes in nondiabetic individuals with the metabolic syndrome assigned to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril as initial treatment for hypertension: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

OBJECTIVE: Optimal initial antihypertensive drug therapy in people with the metabolic syndrome is unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a subgroup analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) to compare metabolic, cardiovascular, and renal outcomes in individuals assigned to initial hypertension treatment with a thiazide-like diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (CCB; amlodipine), or an ACE inhibitor (lisinopril) in nondiabetic individuals with or without metabolic syndrome. RESULTS: In participants with metabolic syndrome, at 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes (fasting glucose >or=126 mg/dl) was 17.1% for chlorthalidone, 16.0% for amlodipine (P = 0.49, chlorthalidone vs. amlodipine) and 12.6% for lisinopril (P < 0.05, lisinopril vs. chlorthalidone). For those without metabolic syndrome, the rate of newly diagnosed diabetes was 7.7% for chlorthalidone, 4.2% for amlodipine, and 4.7% for lisinopril (P < 0.05 for both comparisons). There were no differences in relative risks (RRs) for outcomes with amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone in those with metabolic syndrome; in those without metabolic syndrome, there was a higher risk for heart failure (RR 1.55 [95% CI 1.25-1.35]). In comparison with lisinopril, chlorthalidone was superior in those with metabolic syndrome with respect to heart failure (1.31 [1.04-1.64]) and combined cardiovascular disease (CVD) (1.19 [1.07-1.32]). No significant treatment group-metabolic syndrome interaction was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a less favorable metabolic profile, thiazide-like diuretic initial therapy for hypertension offers similar, and in some instances possibly superior, CVD outcomes in older hypertensive adults with metabolic syndrome, as compared with treatment with CCBs and ACE inhibitors.

Health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness components of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial: rationale and design.

Diabetes mellitus affects not only life expectancy but also quality of life. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial's health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and cost-effectiveness components will enable the assessment of the relative importance of the various outcomes from the point of view of patients, provide an understanding of the balance between the burdens and benefits of the intervention strategies, and offer valuable insights into adherence. The HRQOL measures used include the Diabetes Symptoms Distress Checklist; the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Version 2 (SF-36) (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA); the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) depression measure (Pfizer Inc, New York, NY); the World Health Organization (WHO) Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ); and the EuroQol Feeling Thermometer (EuroQol Group, Rotterdam, Netherlands). The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in ACCORD will provide information about the relative economic efficiency of the different interventions being compared in the trial. Effectiveness will be measured in terms of cardiovascular event-free years gained and quality-adjusted life-years gained (using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 [HUI-3] [Health Utilities Inc., Dundas, Ontario, Canada] to measure health-state utility). Costs will be direct medical costs assessed from the perspective of a single-payer health system collected by means of patient and clinic cost forms and hospital discharge summaries. The primary HRQOL and CEA hypotheses mirror those in the main ACCORD trial, addressing the effects of the 3 main ACCORD interventions considered separately. There are also secondary (pairwise reference case) comparisons that do not assume independence of treatment effects on HRQOL. CEA will be done on a subsample of 4,311 ACCORD participants and HRQOL on a subsample of 2,053 nested within the CEA subsample. Most assessments will occur through questionnaires at baseline and at 12, 36, and 48 months.

The Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) Heart Failure Validation Study: diagnosis and prognosis.

BACKGROUND: ALLHAT, a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled hypertension treatment trial in 42,418 patients, reported that a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone) was superior to a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), and an alpha1-blocker (doxazosin) in preventing the new onset of heart failure (HF). However, questions have been raised regarding the validity of the HF diagnosis. METHODS: The ALLHAT HF Validation Study was designed to validate and elucidate the significance of HF events in ALLHAT. Records for 2778 HF hospitalizations in 1935 patients were centrally reviewed using several prespecified algorithms (based on ALLHAT and Framingham criteria) and reviewers' global clinical judgment. Percent agreement with diagnoses assigned by ALLHAT site physicians, relative risks across randomized comparisons, incidence rates, and mortality after HF hospitalization were evaluated for first events validated by each of the criteria sets. RESULTS: Percent agreements with site physician diagnoses were 71%, 80%, and 84% for ALLHAT, Framingham, and reviewers' judgment, respectively. Using these 3 criteria, relative risks (95% CI) for new-onset HF compared with chlorthalidone were, respectively, 1.46 (1.27-1.68), 1.42 (1.25-1.62), and 1.45 (1.28-1.64) for amlodipine; 1.18 (1.02-1.28), 1.13 (0.99-1.30), and 1.15 (1.01-1.32) for lisinopril; and 1.79 (1.51-2.11), 1.71 (1.46-2.00), and 1.80 (1.55-2.10) for doxazosin. CONCLUSIONS: An independent review of source documentation showed a high degree of agreement with the HF diagnoses assigned by site physicians and confirmed the higher risk of HF associated with first-step therapy using amlodipine, lisinopril, or doxazosin compared with chlorthalidone. Thiazide-type diuretics should be the preferred first-step therapy for prevention of HF in high-risk patients with hypertension.

Incidence and predictors of angioedema in elderly hypertensive patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

Angioedema is a rare, potentially life-threatening condition that has been associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors since their introduction in the 1980s. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), the largest antihypertensive study conducted to date, randomized 42,418 participants to a diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), or an alpha-blocker (doxazosin). Patients who developed angioedema were compared for baseline characteristics and changes in antihypertensive drug administration. Fifty-three participants developed angioedema during active follow-up: 55% were black, 60% men, and 70% were assigned to lisinopril (including 62% of black participants with angioedema), 15% to chlorthalidone, 9% to doxazosin, and 6% to amlodipine. Six percent occurred within a day of randomization and 23% within the first week. Over half did not have an increase in their assigned (blinded) antihypertensive drug before angioedema onset; 3 (6%) had a dose increase within a week before onset. One patient died following an angioedema episode. The occurrence of angioedema in the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor arm corresponds with previously reported angioedema-angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor associations.

Clinical events in high-risk hypertensive patients randomly assigned to calcium channel blocker versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial.

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) provides a unique opportunity to compare the long-term relative safety and efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and calcium channel blocker-initiated therapy in older hypertensive individuals. Patients were randomized to amlodipine (n=9048) or lisinopril (n=9054). The primary outcome was combined fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction, analyzed by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, stroke, combined cardiovascular disease (CVD), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cancer, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Mean follow-up was 4.9 years. Blood pressure control was similar in nonblacks, but not in blacks. No significant differences were found between treatment groups for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, ESRD, or cancer. Stroke rates were higher on lisinopril in blacks (RR=1.51, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.86) but not in nonblacks (RR=1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.28), and in women (RR=1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.79), but not in men (RR=1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31). Rates of combined CVD were higher (RR=1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12) because of higher rates for strokes, peripheral arterial disease, and angina, which were partly offset by lower rates for heart failure (RR=0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96) on lisinopril compared with amlodipine. Gastrointestinal bleeds and angioedema were higher on lisinopril. Patients with and without baseline coronary heart disease showed similar outcome patterns. We conclude that in hypertensive patients, the risks for coronary events are similar, but for stroke, combined CVD, gastrointestinal bleeding, and angioedema are higher and for heart failure are lower for lisinopril-based compared with amlodipine-based therapy. Some, but not all, of these differences may be explained by less effective blood pressure control in the lisinopril arm.

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.

The prevalence of reduced glomerular filtration rate in older hypertensive patients and its association with cardiovascular disease: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in older hypertensive patients and the relationship between level of GFR and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its risk factors are not well known. METHODS: We evaluated baseline renal function in 40 514 hypertensive patients 55 years or older who were enrolled in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). We used the simplified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study equation to estimate GFR and examined the prevalence of CVD in patients with different levels of GFR. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of patients had mild (60-89 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)), 17.2% had moderate (30-59 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)), and 0.6% had severe (

Characteristics and lipid distribution of a large, high-risk, hypertensive population: the lipid-lowering component of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) consisted of 42,418 participants randomized to one of four antihypertensive treatment groups: chlorthalidone, amlodipine, lisinopril, or doxazosin. A subset of these participants with fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels 100-189 mg/dL were randomized into a lipid-lowering component: 5170 to receive pravastatin (40 mg daily) and 5185 to receive usual care. This report describes the characteristics and lipid distribution of these participants. There were no important differences between the randomized treatment groups. Women had higher total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol than men. There was a similar finding for black participants compared with whites, except blacks had lower triglycerides. Diabetics had lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and higher triglycerides than nondiabetics, and patients with body mass index <25 kg/m(2) had higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol but lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides than patients with higher body mass index. The success of the randomization of this large, diverse population and the differences in the lipid distributions among its subgroups will allow further understanding of optimal lipid-lowering treatment.

Success and predictors of blood pressure control in diverse North American settings: the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT).

CONTEXT: Blood pressure control (<140/90 mm Hg) rates for hypertension fall far short of the US national goal of 50% or more. Achievable control rates in varied practice settings and geographic regions and factors that predict improved blood pressure control are not well identified. OBJECTIVE: To determine the success and predictors of blood pressure control in a large hypertension trial involving a multiethnic population in diverse practice settings. DESIGN: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial is a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial with a mean follow-up of 4.9 years. Participant enrollment began in February 1994 and follow-up was completed in March 2002. SETTING: A total of 623 centers in the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 33,357 participants (aged > or =55 years) with hypertension and at least one other coronary heart disease risk factor. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive (double-blind) 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) after other medication was discontinued. Doses were increased within these ranges and additional drugs from other classes were added as needed to achieve blood pressure control (<140/90 mm Hg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures for this report are systolic and diastolic blood pressure, the proportion of participants achieving blood pressure control (<140/90 mm Hg), and the number of drugs required to achieve control in all three groups combined. RESULTS: Mean age was 67 years, 47% were women, 35% black, 36% diabetic; 90% were on antihypertensive drug treatment at entry. At the first of two pre-randomization visits, blood pressure was <140/90 mm Hg in only 27.4% of participants. After 5 years of follow-up, the percent controlled improved to 66%. Systolic blood pressure was <140 mm Hg in 67% of participants, diastolic blood pressure was <90 mm Hg in 92%, the mean number of drugs prescribed was 2.0+/-1.0, and the percent on > or =2 drugs was 63%. Blood pressure control varied by geographic regions, practice settings, and demographic and clinical characteristics of participants. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that blood pressure may be controlled in two thirds of a multiethnic hypertensive population in diverse practice settings. Systolic blood pressure is more difficult to control than diastolic blood pressure, and at least two antihypertensive medications are required for most patients to achieve blood pressure control. It is likely that the majority of people with hypertension could achieve a blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg with the antihypertensive medications available today.