Contrasting mortality risks among subgroups of treated hypertensive patients developing new-onset diabetes.

AIMS: Hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM) frequently cluster together and synergistically increase cardiovascular risk. Among those who develop DM during treatment for hypertension (new-onset diabetes, NOD), it is unclear whether NOD reflects a separate entity associated with increased risk or merely reflects accelerated presentation of DM. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data on 15 089 hypertensive patients attending the Glasgow Blood Pressure Clinic. The date at first hospital encounter either with diagnosis of diabetes or prescription of anti-hyperglycaemic medication were considered as the onset of diabetes. Cox proportional hazard models (including propensity score matching) were employed to study associations between diabetes status, early and late NOD (diagnosis <10 years or >10 years from first clinic visit) and cause-specific mortality. There were 2516 patients (16.7%) with DM, of whom 1862 (12.3%) had NOD [early NOD = 705 (4.6%); late NOD = 1157 (7.6%)]. The incidence rate of NOD was 8.2 per 1000 person-years. The total time at risk was 239 929 person-years [median survival: 28.1 years (inter-quartile range: 16.2-39.9)]. Compared with non-diabetic individuals, prevalent DM [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-2.2] and time varying NOD status (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.06-1.17) were associated with increased adjusted all-cause mortality. Early NOD (HR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.2-1.6) was associated with increased in mortality risk, but not late NOD (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.83-1.01). Results were consistent in the propensity score matched analyses. CONCLUSION: Although 1-in-8 hypertensive patients develop NOD, mortality is increased only in the 1-in-20 who develop early NOD. Further studies are warranted to determine if early identification of such individuals should provide an alert for intensification of therapeutic interventions.

Noninvasive cardiac event monitoring to detect atrial fibrillation after ischemic stroke: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Atrial fibrillation (AF) elevates risk of recurrent stroke but is incompletely identified by standard investigation after stroke, though detection rates correlate with monitoring duration. We hypothesized that 7 days of noninvasive cardiac-event monitoring early after stroke would accelerate detection of AF and thus uptake of effective therapy. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic randomized trial with objective outcome assessment among patients presenting in sinus rhythm with no AF history, within 7 days of ischemic stroke symptom onset. Patients were randomized to standard practice investigations (SP) to detect AF, or SP plus additional monitoring (SP-AM). AM comprised 7 days of noninvasive cardiac-event monitoring reported by an accredited cardiac electrocardiology laboratory. Primary outcome was detection of AF at 14 days. RESULTS: One-hundred patients were enrolled from 2 centers. Within 14 days of stroke, sustained paroxysms of AF were detected in 18% of patients undergoing SP-AM versus 2% undergoing SP (P<0.05). Paroxysms of any-duration were detected in 44% of patients undergoing SP-AM versus 4% undergoing SP (P<0.001). These differences persisted at 90 days. Anticoagulant therapy was commenced within 14 days in 16% of SP-AM patients versus none randomized to SP (P<0.01). This difference persisted to 90 days (22% versus 6%; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Routine noninvasive cardiac-event monitoring after acute stroke enhances detection of paroxysmal AF and early anticoagulation. Extended monitoring should be offered to all eligible patients soon after acute stroke. Guidelines on investigation for AF in stroke patients could be strengthened. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/. Unique identifier: ISRCTN97412358.

Aliskiren and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine combination as an initial treatment strategy for hypertension control (ACCELERATE): a randomised, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: Short-term studies have suggested that the use of initial combination therapy for the control of blood pressure improves early effectiveness. We tested whether a combination of aliskiren and amlodipine is superior to each monotherapy in early control of blood pressure without excess of adverse events, and if initial control by monotherapy impairs subsequent control by combination therapy. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial at 146 primary and secondary care sites in ten countries, with enrolment from Nov 28, 2008, to July 15, 2009. Patients eligible for enrolment had essential hypertension, were aged 18 years or older, and had systolic blood pressure between 150 and 180 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:2) to treatment with 150 mg aliskiren plus placebo, 5 mg amlodipine plus placebo, or 150 mg aliskiren plus 5 mg amlodipine. Random assignment was through a central interactive voice response system and treatment allocation was masked from the patients. From 16-32 weeks, all patients received combination therapy with 300 mg aliskiren plus 10 mg amlodipine. Our primary endpoints, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis (ie, in patients who received the allocated treatment), were the adjusted mean reduction in systolic blood pressure from baseline over 8 to 24 weeks, and then the final reduction at 24 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00797862. FINDINGS: 318 patients were randomly assigned to aliskiren, 316 to amlodipine, and 620 to aliskiren plus amlodipine. 315 patients initially allocated to aliskiren, 315 allocated to amlodipine, and 617 allocated to aliskiren plus amlodipine were available for analysis. Patients given initial combination therapy had a 6·5 mm Hg (95% CI 5·3 to 7·7) greater reduction in mean systolic blood pressure than the monotherapy groups (p<0·0001). At 24 weeks, when all patients were on combination treatment, the difference was 1·4 mm Hg (95% CI -0·05 to 2·9; p=0·059). Adverse events caused withdrawal of 85 patients (14%) from the initial aliskiren plus amlodipine group, 45 (14%) from the aliskiren group, and 58 (18%) from the amlodipine group. Adverse events were peripheral oedema, hypotension, or orthostatic hypotension. INTERPRETATION: We believe that routine initial reduction in blood pressure (>150 mm Hg) with a combination such as aliskiren plus amlodipine can be recommended. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma AG.

The unintended consequences of clinical trials regulations.

Alex McMahon and colleagues critique the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) guidance on good clinical practice (GCP), arguing that it is having a disastrous effect on noncommerical randomized clinical trials in Europe.

Drug treatment of prehypertension: Not now, not ever?

People with prehypertension undoubtedly have an increased risk of cardiovascular and other complications. The vast majority have low absolute risk and whether drug treatment would be beneficial is uncertain. While pharmacotherapy has attractions from a public health prospective, clinicians and crucially those with prehypertension require robust evidence that drug treatment will lead to short-term as well as long-term gains. Any changes in recommendations should await adequately powered outcome studies, which provide solid evidence of the magnitude of absolute risk reduction in treating prehyper-tension and assessment of the cost-effectiveness.

Reduced incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation with angiotensin II receptor blockade: the VALUE trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia and increases cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients. Therefore, in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) a prespecified objective was to compare the effects of valsartan and amlodipine on new-onset AF. METHODS: A total of 15 245 hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk received valsartan 80-160 mg/day or amlodipine 5-10 mg/day combined with additional antihypertensive agents. Electrocardiograms were obtained every year and analyzed centrally for evidence of left ventricular hypertrophy and new-onset AF. RESULTS: At baseline, AF was diagnosed in 2.6% of 7649 valsartan recipients and 2.6% of 7596 amlodipine recipients. During antihypertensive treatment the incidence of at least one documented occurrence of new-onset AF was 3.67% with valsartan and 4.34% with amlodipine [unadjusted hazard ratio 0.843, [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.713, 0.997], P = 0.0455]. The incidence of persistent AF was 1.35% with valsartan and 1.97% with amlodipine [unadjusted hazard ratio 0.683 (95% CI: 0.525, 0.889), P = 0.0046]. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan-based treatment reduced the development of new-onset AF, particularly sustained AF in hypertensive patients, compared with amlodipine-based therapy. These findings suggest that angiotensin II receptor blockers may result in greater benefits than calcium antagonists in hypertensive patients at risk of new-onset AF.

The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial: blood pressure-lowering limb: effects in patients with type II diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of two antihypertensive treatment strategies for the prevention of coronary heart disease and other cardiovascular events in the large subpopulation (n=5137) with diabetes mellitus in the blood pressure-lowering arm of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial. METHODS: Patients had either untreated hypertension or treated hypertension. For those with type II diabetes mellitus, inclusion criteria required at least two additional risk factors. Patients were randomized to amlodipine with addition of perindopril as required (amlodipine-based) or atenolol with addition of thiazide as required (atenolol-based). Therapy was titrated to achieve a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mmHg. RESULTS: The trial was terminated early due to significant benefits on mortality and stroke associated with the amlodipine-based regimen. In patients with diabetes mellitus, the amlodipine-based treatment reduced the incidence of the composite endpoint--total cardiovascular events and procedures--compared with the atenolol-based regimen (hazard ratio 0.86, confidence interval 0.76-0.98, P=0.026). Fatal and nonfatal strokes were reduced by 25% (P=0.017), peripheral arterial disease by 48% (P=0.004) and noncoronary revascularization procedures by 57% (P<0.001). For the other endpoints included in the composite, the endpoint differences were less clear including coronary heart disease deaths and nonfatal myocardial infarctions (the primary endpoint), which were reduced nonsignificantly by 8% (hazard ratio 0.92, confidence interval 0.74-1.15). CONCLUSION: In the large diabetic subgroup in the blood pressure-lowering arm of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial, the benefits of amlodipine-based treatment, compared with atenolol-based treatment, on the incidence of total cardiovascular events and procedures was significant (14% reduction) and similar to that observed in the total trial population (16% reduction).

Drug Insight: eplerenone, a mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonist.

Increasing recognition of the role of aldosterone in cardiovascular disease has been supported by a significant body of evidence from animal models. This evidence has been translated into clinical practice, and large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled trials have confirmed the beneficial effects of mineralocorticoid blockade in patients with heart failure. As a consequence, there has been a resurgence in the use of mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists in clinical practice that has prompted the search for a potent and specific antagonist without the sexual side effects of spironolactone. Eplerenone, a mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonist with minimal binding to the progesterone and androgen receptors, is now licensed for treatment of heart failure in Europe and heart failure and hypertension in the US; it has also been proposed as a treatment for a variety of cardiovascular conditions. This article reviews the current concepts of the actions of aldosterone at a cellular level. Recent findings regarding its role as a cardiovascular hormone, both in animal models and human studies, are discussed. We also describe the development of mineralocorticoid-receptor blockers following the isolation of aldosterone and discuss the subsequent search for a specific mineralocorticoid antagonist. In addition we detail the effects of eplerenone in a number of clinical situations and outline its potential future applications.

Endocrine and haemodynamic changes in resistant hypertension, and blood pressure responses to spironolactone or amiloride: the PATHWAY-2 mechanisms substudies.

BACKGROUND: In the PATHWAY-2 study of resistant hypertension, spironolactone reduced blood pressure substantially more than conventional antihypertensive drugs. We did three substudies to assess the mechanisms underlying this superiority and the pathogenesis of resistant hypertension. METHODS: PATHWAY-2 was a randomised, double-blind crossover trial done at 14 UK primary and secondary care sites in 314 patients with resistant hypertension. Patients were given 12 weeks of once daily treatment with each of placebo, spironolactone 25-50 mg, bisoprolol 5-10 mg, and doxazosin 4-8 mg and the change in home systolic blood pressure was assessed as the primary outcome. In our three substudies, we assessed plasma aldosterone, renin, and aldosterone-to-renin ratio (ARR) as predictors of home systolic blood pressure, and estimated prevalence of primary aldosteronism (substudy 1); assessed the effects of each drug in terms of thoracic fluid index, cardiac index, stroke index, and systemic vascular resistance at seven sites with haemodynamic monitoring facilities (substudy 2); and assessed the effect of amiloride 10-20 mg once daily on clinic systolic blood pressure during an optional 6-12 week open-label runout phase (substudy 3). The PATHWAY-2 trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2008-007149-30, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02369081. FINDINGS: Of the 314 patients in PATHWAY-2, 269 participated in one or more of the three substudies: 126 in substudy 1, 226 in substudy 2, and 146 in substudy 3. Home systolic blood pressure reduction by spironolactone was predicted by ARR (r2=0·13, p<0·0001) and plasma renin (r2=0·11, p=0·00024). 42 patients had low renin concentrations (predefined as the lowest tertile of plasma renin), of which 31 had a plasma aldosterone concentration greater than the mean value for all 126 patients (250 pmol/L). Thus, 31 (25% [95% CI 17-33]) of 126 patients were deemed to have inappropriately high aldosterone concentrations. Thoracic fluid content was reduced by 6·8% from baseline (95% CI 4·0 to 8·8; p<0·0001) with spironolactone, but not other treatments. Amiloride (10 mg once daily) reduced clinic systolic blood pressure by 20·4 mm Hg (95% CI 18·3-22·5), compared with a reduction of 18·3 mm Hg (16·2-20·5) with spironolactone (25 mg once daily). No serious adverse events were recorded, and adverse symptoms were not systematically recorded after the end of the double-blind treatment. Mean plasma potassium concentrations increased from 4·02 mmol/L (95% CI 3·95-4·08) on placebo to 4·50 (4·44-4·57) on amiloride (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that resistant hypertension is commonly a salt-retaining state, most likely due to inappropriate aldosterone secretion. Mineralocorticoid receptor blockade by spironolactone overcomes the salt retention and resistance of hypertension to treatment. Amiloride seems to be as effective an antihypertensive as spironolactone, offering a substitute treatment for resistant hypertension. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation and UK National Institute for Health Research.

Prediction of cardiovascular outcome by estimated glomerular filtration rate and estimated creatinine clearance in the high-risk hypertension population of the VALUE trial.

BACKGROUND: Reduced renal function is predictive of poor cardiovascular outcomes but the predictive value of different measures of renal function is uncertain. METHODS: We compared the value of estimated creatinine clearance, using the Cockcroft-Gault formula, with that of estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR), using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formula, as predictors of cardiovascular outcome in 15 245 high-risk hypertensive participants in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial. For the primary end-point, the three secondary end-points and for all-cause death, outcomes were compared for individuals with baseline estimated creatinine clearance and estimated GFR < 60 ml/min and > or = 60 ml/min using hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Coronary heart disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, age, sex and treatment effects were included as covariates in the model. RESULTS: For each end-point considered, the risk in individuals with poor renal function at baseline was greater than in those with better renal function. Estimated creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) was significantly predictive only of all-cause death [hazard ratio = 1.223, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.076-1.390; P = 0.0021] whereas estimated GFR was predictive of all outcomes except stroke. Hazard ratios (95% CIs) for estimated GFR were: primary cardiac end-point, 1.497 (1.332-1.682), P < 0.0001; myocardial infarction, 1.501 (1.254-1.796), P < 0.0001; congestive heart failure, 1.699 (1.435-2.013), P < 0.0001; stroke, 1.152 (0.952-1.394) P = 0.1452; and all-cause death, 1.231 (1.098-1.380), P = 0.0004. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that estimated glomerular filtration rate calculated with the MDRD formula is more informative than estimated creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) in the prediction of cardiovascular outcomes.

Does the aldosterone:renin ratio predict the efficacy of spironolactone over bendroflumethiazide in hypertension? A clinical trial protocol for RENALDO (RENin-ALDOsterone) study.

BACKGROUND: High blood pressure is an important determinant of cardiovascular disease risk. Treated hypertensives do not attain a risk level equivalent to normotensives. This may be a consequence of suboptimal blood pressure control to which indiscriminate use of antihypertensive drugs may contribute. Indeed the recent ALLHAT1study suggests that thiazides should be given first to virtually all hypertensives. Whether this is correct or whether different antihypertensive therapies should be targeted towards different patients is a major unresolved issue, which we address in this study. The measurement of the ratio of aldosterone: renin is used to identify hypertensive subjects who may respond well to treatment with the aldosterone antagonist spironolactone. It is not known if subjects with a high ratio have aldosteronism or aldosterone-sensitive hypertension is debated but it is important to know whether spironolactone is superior to other diuretics such as bendroflumethiazide in this setting. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a double-blind, randomised, crossover, controlled trial that will randomise 120 hypertensive subjects to 12 weeks treatment with spironolactone 50 mg once daily and 12 weeks treatment with bendroflumethiazide 2.5 mg once daily. The 2 treatment periods are separated by a 2-week washout period. Randomisation is stratified by aldosterone: renin ratio to include equal numbers of subjects with high and low aldosterone: renin ratios. Primary Objective--To test the hypothesis that the aldosterone: renin ratio predicts the antihypertensive response to spironolactone, specifically that the effect of spironolactone 50 mg is greater than that of bendroflumethiazide 2.5 mg in hypertensive subjects with high aldosterone: renin ratios. Secondary Objectives--To determine whether bendroflumethiazide induces adverse metabolic abnormalities, especially in subjects with high aldosterone: renin ratios and if baseline renin measurement predicts the antihypertensive response to spironolactone and/or bendrofluazide. DISCUSSION: The numerous deleterious effects of hypertension dictate the need for a systematic approach for its treatment. In spite of various therapies, resistant hypertension is widely prevalent. Among various factors, primary aldosteronism is an important cause of resistant hypertension and is now more commonly recognised. More significantly, hypertensives with primary aldosteronism are also exposed to various other deleterious effects of excess aldosterone. Hence treating hypertension with specific aldosterone antagonists may be a better approach in this group of patients. It may lead on to better blood pressures with fewer medications.

Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The apparent shortfall in prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) noted in early hypertension trials has been attributed to disadvantages of the diuretics and beta blockers used. For a given reduction in blood pressure, some suggested that newer agents would confer advantages over diuretics and beta blockers. Our aim, therefore, was to compare the effect on non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD of combinations of atenolol with a thiazide versus amlodipine with perindopril. METHODS: We did a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial in 19 257 patients with hypertension who were aged 40-79 years and had at least three other cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were assigned either amlodipine 5-10 mg adding perindopril 4-8 mg as required (amlodipine-based regimen; n=9639) or atenolol 50-100 mg adding bendroflumethiazide 1.25-2.5 mg and potassium as required (atenolol-based regimen; n=9618). Our primary endpoint was non-fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infarction) and fatal CHD. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The study was stopped prematurely after 5.5 years' median follow-up and accumulated in total 106 153 patient-years of observation. Though not significant, compared with the atenolol-based regimen, fewer individuals on the amlodipine-based regimen had a primary endpoint (429 vs 474; unadjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.02, p=0.1052), fatal and non-fatal stroke (327 vs 422; 0.77, 0.66-0.89, p=0.0003), total cardiovascular events and procedures (1362 vs 1602; 0.84, 0.78-0.90, p<0.0001), and all-cause mortality (738 vs 820; 0.89, 0.81-0.99, p=0.025). The incidence of developing diabetes was less on the amlodipine-based regimen (567 vs 799; 0.70, 0.63-0.78, p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: The amlodipine-based regimen prevented more major cardiovascular events and induced less diabetes than the atenolol-based regimen. On the basis of previous trial evidence, these effects might not be entirely explained by better control of blood pressure, and this issue is addressed in the accompanying article. Nevertheless, the results have implications with respect to optimum combinations of antihypertensive agents.

Role of blood pressure and other variables in the differential cardiovascular event rates noted in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA).

BACKGROUND: Results of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) show significantly lower rates of coronary and stroke events in individuals allocated an amlodipine-based combination drug regimen than in those allocated an atenolol-based combination drug regimen (HR 0.86 and 0.77, respectively). Our aim was to assess to what extent these differences were due to significant differences in blood pressures and in other variables noted after randomisation. METHODS: We used data from ASCOT-BPLA (n=19 257) and compared differences in accumulated mean blood pressure levels at sequential times in the trial with sequential differences in coronary and stroke events. Serial mean matching for differences in systolic blood pressure was used to adjust HRs for differences in these events. We used an updated Cox-regression model to assess the effects of differences in accumulated mean levels of various measures of blood pressure, serum HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides and potassium, fasting blood glucose, heart rate, and bodyweight on differences in event rates. FINDINGS: We noted no temporal link between size of differences in blood pressure and different event rates. Serial mean matching for differences in systolic blood-pressure attenuated HRs for coronary and stroke events to a similar extent as did adjustments for systolic blood-pressure differences in Cox-regression analyses. HRs for coronary events and stroke adjusted for blood pressure rose from 0.86 (0.77-0.96) to 0.88 (0.79-0.98) and from 0.77 (0.66-0.89) to 0.83 (0.72-0.96), respectively. Multivariate adjustment gave HRs of 0.94 (0.81-1.08) for coronary events (HDL cholesterol being the largest contributor) and 0.87 (0.73-1.05) for stroke events. INTERPRETATION: Multivariate adjustment accounted for about half of the differences in coronary events and for about 40% of the differences in stroke events between the treatment regimens tested in ASCOT-BPLA, but residual differences were no longer significant. These residual differences could indicate inadequate statistical adjustment, but it remains possible that differential effects of the two treatment regimens on other variables also contributed to the different rates noted, particularly for stroke.

Outcomes in subgroups of hypertensive patients treated with regimens based on valsartan and amlodipine: An analysis of findings from the VALUE trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial the primary outcome (cardiac morbidity and mortality) did not differ between valsartan and amlodipine-based treatment groups, although systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure reductions were significantly more pronounced with amlodipine. Stroke incidence was non-significantly, and myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the amlodipine-based regimen, whereas cardiac failure was non-significantly lower on valsartan. OBJECTIVES: The study protocol specified additional analyses of the primary endpoint according to: sex; age; race; geographical region; smoking status; type 2 diabetes; total cholesterol; left ventricular hypertrophy; proteinuria; serum creatinine; a history of coronary heart disease; a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack; and a history of peripheral artery disease. Additional subgroups were isolated systolic hypertension and classes of antihypertensive agents used immediately before randomization. METHODS: The 15,245 hypertensive patients participating in VALUE were divided into subgroups according to baseline characteristics. Treatment by subgroup interaction analyses were carried out by a Cox proportional hazard model. Within each subgroup, treatment effects were assessed by hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: For cardiac mortality and morbidity, the only significant subgroup by treatment interaction was of sex (P = 0.016), with the hazard ratio indicating a relative excess of cardiac events with valsartan treatment in women but not in men, but SBP differences in favour of amlodipine were distinctly greater in women. No other subgroup showed a significant difference in the composite cardiac outcome between valsartan and amlodipine-based treatments. For secondary endpoints, a sex-related significant interaction was found for heart failure (P < 0.0001), with men but not women having a lower incidence of heart failure with valsartan. CONCLUSION: As in the whole VALUE cohort, in no subgroup of patients were there differences in the incidence of the composite cardiac endpoint with valsartan and amlodipine-based treatments, despite a greater blood pressure decrease in the amlodipine group. The only exception was sex, in which the amlodipine-based regimen was more effective than valsartan in women, but not in men, whereas the valsartan regimen was more effective in preventing cardiac failure in men than in women.

Effects of valsartan compared to amlodipine on preventing type 2 diabetes in high-risk hypertensive patients: the VALUE trial.

CONTEXT: Type 2 diabetes is emerging as a major health problem, which tends to cluster with hypertension in individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: To test for the first time the hypothesis that treatment of hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk with the angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) valsartan prevents new-onset type 2 diabetes compared with the metabolically neutral calcium-channel antagonist (CCA) amlodipine. DESIGN: Pre-specified analysis in the VALUE trial. Follow-up averaged 4.2 years. The risk of developing new diabetes was calculated as an odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for different definitions of diabetes. PATIENTS: A sample of 9995 high-risk, non-diabetic hypertensive patients. INTERVENTIONS: Valsartan or amlodipine with or without add-on medication [hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and other add-ons, excluding other ARBs, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCAs]. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: New diabetes defined as an adverse event, new blood-glucose-lowering drugs and/or fasting glucose > 7.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: New diabetes was reported in 580 (11.5%) patients on valsartan and in 718 (14.5%) patients on amlodipine (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.87, P < 0.0001). Using stricter criteria (without adverse event reports) new diabetes was detected in 495 (9.8%) patients on valsartan and in 586 (11.8%) on amlodipine (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.93, P = 0.0015). CONCLUSION: Compared with amlodipine, valsartan reduces the risk of developing diabetes mellitus in high-risk hypertensive patients.

Reduction in cardiovascular events with atorvastatin in 2,532 patients with type 2 diabetes: Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial--lipid-lowering arm (ASCOT-LLA).

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to establish the benefits of lowering cholesterol in diabetic patients with well-controlled hypertension and average/below-average cholesterol concentrations, but without established coronary disease. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the lipid-lowering arm of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT-LLA), 10,305 hypertensive patients with no history of coronary heart disease (CHD) but at least three cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg atorvastatin or placebo. Effects on total cardiovascular outcomes in 2,532 patients who had type 2 diabetes at randomization were compared. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.3 years, concentrations of total and LDL cholesterol among diabetic participants included in ASCOT-LLA were approximately 1 mmol/l lower in those allocated atorvastatin compared with placebo. There were 116 (9.2%) major cardiovascular events or procedures in the atorvastatin group and 151 (11.9%) events in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.98; P = 0.036). For the individual components of this composite end point, the number of events occurring in the diabetes subgroup was small. Therefore, although fewer coronary events (0.84, 0.55-1.29; P = 0.14) and strokes (0.67, 0.41-1.09; P = 0.66) were observed among the patients allocated atorvastatin, these reductions were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Atorvastatin significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events and procedures among diabetic patients with well-controlled hypertension and without a history of CHD or markedly elevated cholesterol concentrations. The proportional reduction in risk was similar to that among participants who did not have diagnosed diabetes. Allocation to atorvastatin prevented approximately 9 diabetic participants from suffering a first major cardiovascular event or procedure for every 1,000 treated for 1 year.

Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test the hypothesis that for the same blood-pressure control, valsartan would reduce cardiac morbidity and mortality more than amlodipine in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: 15?245 patients, aged 50 years or older with treated or untreated hypertension and high risk of cardiac events participated in a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of therapy based on valsartan or amlodipine. Duration of treatment was event-driven and the trial lasted until at least 1450 patients had reached a primary endpoint, defined as a composite of cardiac mortality and morbidity. Patients from 31 countries were followed up for a mean of 4.2 years. FINDINGS: Blood pressure was reduced by both treatments, but the effects of the amlodipine-based regimen were more pronounced, especially in the early period (blood pressure 4.0/2.1 mm Hg lower in amlodipine than valsartan group after 1 month; 1.5/1.3 mm Hg after 1 year; p<0.001 between groups). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 810 patients in the valsartan group (10.6%, 25.5 per 1000 patient-years) and 789 in the amlodipine group (10.4%, 24.7 per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.15, p=0.49). INTERPRETATION: The main outcome of cardiac disease did not differ between the treatment groups. Unequal reductions in blood pressure might account for differences between the groups in cause-specific outcomes. The findings emphasise the importance of prompt blood-pressure control in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk.

Blood pressure dependent and independent effects of antihypertensive treatment on clinical events in the VALUE Trial.

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test whether, for the same achieved blood pressures, regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine would have differing effects on cardiovascular endpoints in high risk hypertension. But inequalities in blood pressure, favouring amlodipine, throughout the multiyear trial precluded comparison of outcomes. A technique of serial median matching, applied at 6 months when treatment adjustments intended to achieve control of blood pressure were complete, created 5006 valsartan-amlodipine patient pairs matched exactly for systolic blood pressure, age, sex, and the presence or absence of previous coronary disease, stroke, or diabetes. Subsequent combined cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality were almost identical in the two cohorts, but admission to hospital for heart failure was significantly lower with valsartan. Reaching blood pressure control (systolic <140 mm Hg) by 6 months, independent of drug type, was associated with significant benefits for subsequent major outcomes; the blood pressure response after just 1 month of treatment predicted events and survival.