Comparing six cardiovascular risk prediction models in Haiti: implications for identifying high-risk individuals for primary prevention.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are rapidly increasing in low-middle income countries (LMICs). Accurate risk assessment is essential to reduce premature CVD by targeting primary prevention and risk factor treatment among high-risk groups. Available CVD risk prediction models are built on predominantly Caucasian risk profiles from high-income country populations, and have not been evaluated in LMIC populations. We aimed to compare six existing models for predicted 10-year risk of CVD and identify high-risk groups for targeted prevention and treatment in Haiti. METHODS: We used cross-sectional data within the Haiti CVD Cohort Study, including 1345 adults ≥ 40 years without known history of CVD and with complete data. Six CVD risk prediction models were compared: pooled cohort equations (PCE), adjusted PCE with updated cohorts, Framingham CVD Lipids, Framingham CVD Body Mass Index (BMI), WHO Lipids, and WHO BMI. Risk factors were measured during clinical exams. Primary outcome was continuous and categorical predicted 10-year CVD risk. Secondary outcome was statin eligibility. RESULTS: Sixty percent were female, 66.8% lived on a daily income of ≤ 1 USD, 52.9% had hypertension, 14.9% had hypercholesterolemia, 7.8% had diabetes mellitus, 4.0% were current smokers, and 2.5% had HIV. Predicted 10-year CVD risk ranged from 3.6% in adjusted PCE (IQR 1.7-8.2) to 9.6% in Framingham-BMI (IQR 4.9-18.0), and Spearman rank correlation coefficients ranged from 0.86 to 0.98. The percent of the cohort categorized as high risk using model specific thresholds ranged from 1.8% using the WHO-BMI model to 41.4% in the PCE model (χ2 = 1416, p value < 0.001). Statin eligibility also varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: In the Haiti CVD Cohort, there was substantial variation in the proportion identified as high-risk and statin eligible using existing models, leading to very different treatment recommendations and public health implications depending on which prediction model is chosen. There is a need to design and validate CVD risk prediction tools for low-middle income countries that include locally relevant risk factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03892265 .

Smoking and overweight associated with masked uncontrolled hypertension: a Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) Sub-Study.

PURPOSE: The Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) Study investigated the relationship between target office diastolic blood pressure (BP) ≤80, ≤85 or ≤90 mmHg and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in 18,790 patients aged 50-80 years. The home BP sub-study enrolled 926 patients and the aim was to clarify whether the separation into the BP target groups in the office prevailed in the out-of-office setting. The present study aimed to identify variables that characterised masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) and white coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sub-study participants took their home BP when office BP had been up titrated. The cut-off for normal or high BP was set to ≥135/85 mmHg at home and ≥140/90 mmHg in the office. We analysed data by using multivariate and stepwise multivariate logistic regression with home and office BP combinations as the dependent variables. RESULTS: WUCH was associated with lower body mass index (BMI) (odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% confident intervals (CIs) 0.88-0.96, p < 0.001). MUCH was associated with smoking (OR 1.89, 95% CIs 1.25-2.86, p = 0.0025) and with lower baseline heart rate (OR 0.98, 95% CIs 0.97-0.99, p = 0.03) and higher BMI (OR 1.03, CIs 1.00-1.06, p = 0.04). MUCH remained associated with smoking (OR 2.76, 95% CIs 1.76-4.35, p < 0.0001) also when using ≥140/90 mmHg as the cut-off for both home and office BP. MUCH was also associated with higher BMI (OR 1.05, 95% CIs 1.01-1.09, p = 0.009) while WUCH was associated with lower BMI (OR 0.93, 95% CIs 0.90-0.97, p = 0.0005) when using ≥140/90 mmHg as a cut-off. CONCLUSION: Our data support that 'reversed or masked' treated but uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) is common and constitutes about 25% of treated hypertensive patients. This entity (MUCH) is rather strongly associated with current smoking and overweight while uncontrolled white coat (office) hypertension (WUCH) is associated with lower BMI.

Acute Declines in Renal Function during Intensive BP Lowering and Long-Term Risk of Death.

BACKGROUND: During intensive BP lowering, acute declines in renal function are common, thought to be hemodynamic, and potentially reversible. We previously showed that acute declines in renal function ≥20% during intensive BP lowering were associated with higher risk of ESRD. Here, we determined whether acute declines in renal function during intensive BP lowering were associated with mortality risk among 1660 participants of the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension and the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Trial. METHODS: We used Cox models to examine the association between percentage decline in eGFR (<5%, 5% to <20%, or ≥20%) between randomization and months 3-4 of the trials (period of therapy intensification) and death. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, compared with a <5% eGFR decline in the usual BP arm (reference), a 5% to <20% eGFR decline in the intensive BP arm was associated with a survival benefit (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.62 to 0.96), but a 5% to <20% eGFR decline in the usual BP arm was not (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.26; P<0.05 for the interaction between intensive and usual BP arms for mortality risk). A ≥20% eGFR decline was not associated with risk of death in the intensive BP arm (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.62), but it was associated with a higher risk of death in the usual BP arm (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.89) compared with the reference group. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive BP lowering was associated with a mortality benefit only if declines in eGFR were <20%.

Cardiovascular Events after New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Adults with CKD: Results from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained arrhythmia in CKD, is associated with poor clinical outcomes in both patients without CKD and patients with dialysis-treated ESRD. However, less is known about AF-associated outcomes in patients with CKD who do not require dialysis. METHODS: To prospectively examine the association of new-onset AF with subsequent risks of cardiovascular disease events and death among adults with CKD, we studied participants enrolled in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study who did not have AF at baseline. Outcomes included heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and death occurring after diagnosis of AF. We used Cox regression models and marginal structural models to examine the association of incident AF with subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease events and death, adjusting for patient characteristics, laboratory values, and medication use. RESULTS: Among 3080 participants, 323 (10.5%) developed incident AF during a mean 6.1 years of follow-up. Compared with participants who did not develop AF, those who did had higher adjusted rates of heart failure (hazard ratio [HR], 5.17; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 3.89 to 6.87), myocardial infarction (HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.50 to 5.31), stroke (HR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.50 to 4.74), and death (HR, 3.30; 95% CI, 2.65 to 4.12). These associations remained robust with additional adjustment for biomarkers of inflammation, cardiac stress, and mineral metabolism; left ventricular mass; ejection fraction; and left atrial diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Incident AF is independently associated with two- to five-fold increased rates of developing subsequent heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, or death in adults with CKD. These findings have important implications for cardiovascular risk reduction.

Acute Declines in Renal Function during Intensive BP Lowering: Implications for Future ESRD Risk.

The magnitude of decline in renal function that should be tolerated during intensive BP lowering and its association with risk of ESRD are unclear. To determine whether the acute declines in kidney function in the intensive BP lowering arm of two trials in CKD associated with higher risk of ESRD, we performed a retrospective study of 899 African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) and 761 Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Trial participants previously randomized to strict versus usual BP control. The predictor was the percentage decline in eGFR (<5%, 5% to <20%, or ≥20%) between randomization and months 3 and 4 of the trial (time to achieve BP goals). ESRD was the outcome of interest. Compared with a <5% eGFR decline in the usual BP arm, a 5% to <20% eGFR decline during intensive BP lowering did not associate with a higher risk of ESRD in the AASK (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.84 to 1.68) or the MDRD Trial (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.40). However, a 5% to <20% eGFR decline in the usual BP arm associated with higher risk of ESRD in AASK (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.30 to 2.57) and MDRD Trial (aHR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.25 to 2.11). A ≥20% eGFR decline associated with higher risk of ESRD in both strict and usual BP arms. Thus, acute eGFR declines ≥20% during intensive BP lowering identified a subset of patients at higher risk for adverse outcomes.

Stenting and medical therapy for atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis is a common problem in the elderly. Despite two randomized trials that did not show a benefit of renal-artery stenting with respect to kidney function, the usefulness of stenting for the prevention of major adverse renal and cardiovascular events is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 947 participants who had atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis and either systolic hypertension while taking two or more antihypertensive drugs or chronic kidney disease to medical therapy plus renal-artery stenting or medical therapy alone. Participants were followed for the occurrence of adverse cardiovascular and renal events (a composite end point of death from cardiovascular or renal causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, progressive renal insufficiency, or the need for renal-replacement therapy). RESULTS: Over a median follow-up period of 43 months (interquartile range, 31 to 55), the rate of the primary composite end point did not differ significantly between participants who underwent stenting in addition to receiving medical therapy and those who received medical therapy alone (35.1% and 35.8%, respectively; hazard ratio with stenting, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.17; P=0.58). There were also no significant differences between the treatment groups in the rates of the individual components of the primary end point or in all-cause mortality. During follow-up, there was a consistent modest difference in systolic blood pressure favoring the stent group (-2.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.4 to -0.2; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Renal-artery stenting did not confer a significant benefit with respect to the prevention of clinical events when added to comprehensive, multifactorial medical therapy in people with atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis and hypertension or chronic kidney disease. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00081731.).

Effects of body size and hypertension treatments on cardiovascular event rates: subanalysis of the ACCOMPLISH randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In previous clinical trials in high-risk hypertensive patients, paradoxically higher cardiovascular event rates have been reported in patients of normal weight compared with obese individuals. As a prespecified analysis of the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial, we aimed to investigate whether the type of hypertension treatment affects patients' cardiovascular outcomes according to their body size. METHODS: On the basis of body-mass index (BMI), we divided the full ACCOMPLISH cohort into obese (BMI ≥30, n=5709), overweight (≥25 to <30, n=4157), or normal weight (<25, n=1616) categories. The ACCOMPLISH cohort had already been randomised to treatment with single-pill combinations of either benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide or benazepril and amlodipine. We compared event rates (adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, previous cardiovascular events, stroke, or chronic kidney disease) for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke. The analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170950. FINDINGS: In patients allocated benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide, the primary endpoint (per 1000 patient-years) was 30·7 in normal weight, 21·9 in overweight, and 18·2 in obese patients (overall p=0·0034). However, in those allocated benazepril and amlodipine, the primary endpoint did not differ between the three BMI groups (18·2, 16·9, and 16·5, respectively; overall p=0·9721). In obese individuals, primary event rates were similar with both benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide and benazepril and amlodipine, but rates were significantly lower with benazepril and amlodipine in overweight patients (hazard ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·59-0·94; p=0·0369) and those of normal weight (0·57, 0·39-0·84; p=0·0037). INTERPRETATION: Hypertension in normal weight and obese patients might be mediated by different mechanisms. Thiazide-based treatment gives less cardiovascular protection in normal weight than obese patients, but amlodipine-based therapy is equally effective across BMI subgroups and thus offers superior cardiovascular protection in non-obese hypertension. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

The contribution of the ACCOMPLISH trial to the treatment of stage 2 hypertension.

The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) recommended a thiazide-like diuretic, alone or in combination with other antihypertensive drug classes, as initial therapy for hypertension. JNC 7, however, did not specify preferred combinations. The Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial was completed five years after the JNC 7 and demonstrated a 20 % advantage in cardiovascular risk reduction when blood pressure was lowered using the single-pill combination of benazepril-amlodipine compared to benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide (Jamerson et al. 359(23):2417-28 [1]). This new and significant finding provided compelling evidence that the long-standing preference for diuretics as initial therapy could be refuted, but it may also be relevant to the lower-than-expected reduction in coronary disease related events (compared to stroke) observed for decades prior to the ACCOMPLISH approach to therapy. The JNC 8 panel members recently published their recommendations, and while the group did not recommend benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide over other combinations, they did highlight the findings of ACCOMPLISH, rating the primary ACCOMPLISH paper as "good." The American Society of Hypertension position paper and the European Hypertension Society guidelines endorse such combinations as a first-line agent for patients with stage 2 hypertension. We review the current position of ACCOMPLISH in the guidelines regarding treatment of stage 2 hypertension.

Roll-in experience from the Cardiovascular Outcomes with Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL) study.

PURPOSE: To describe the experience and results from the roll-in phase of the Cardiovascular Outcomes with Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL) study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CORAL roll-in database was used to describe the baseline characteristics of the patients in the roll-in cohort, all of whom underwent renal artery stent placement; to evaluate CORAL site performance; to compare estimates of lesion (stenosis) severity made by site interventionalists with the central CORAL angiographic core laboratory readings; and to report outcomes after renal artery stent placement. During the roll-in phase, 239 patients (mean age, 70.2 y ± 9.0; 49% male) underwent renal artery stent procedures. Angiographic core laboratory analysis of renal arteriograms was done, and participants were followed at 1 month and 9 months. RESULTS: Major angiographic complications were identified in 28 (13%) subjects. Kidney function remained unchanged at the short (2-4 weeks) follow-up interval. Improvement in systolic blood pressure with use of distal embolic protection devices (n = 161) did not show any clinical benefit over nonuse of such devices (n = 78) in this small series. At 9 months, there were significantly more endpoints reported by site in subjects with bilateral renal artery stenosis (P = .01) and prior history of stroke (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In the roll-in phase of the CORAL study, a significant number of angiographic complications were identified. No effect was seen on estimated glomerular filtration rate after renal artery stent placement, but systolic blood pressure decreased significantly.

Intensive blood-pressure control in hypertensive chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: In observational studies, the relationship between blood pressure and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is direct and progressive. The burden of hypertension-related chronic kidney disease and ESRD is especially high among black patients. Yet few trials have tested whether intensive blood-pressure control retards the progression of chronic kidney disease among black patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1094 black patients with hypertensive chronic kidney disease to receive either intensive or standard blood-pressure control. After completing the trial phase, patients were invited to enroll in a cohort phase in which the blood-pressure target was less than 130/80 mm Hg. The primary clinical outcome in the cohort phase was the progression of chronic kidney disease, which was defined as a doubling of the serum creatinine level, a diagnosis of ESRD, or death. Follow-up ranged from 8.8 to 12.2 years. RESULTS: During the trial phase, the mean blood pressure was 130/78 mm Hg in the intensive-control group and 141/86 mm Hg in the standard-control group. During the cohort phase, corresponding mean blood pressures were 131/78 mm Hg and 134/78 mm Hg. In both phases, there was no significant between-group difference in the risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio in the intensive-control group, 0.91; P=0.27). However, the effects differed according to the baseline level of proteinuria (P=0.02 for interaction), with a potential benefit in patients with a protein-to-creatinine ratio of more than 0.22 (hazard ratio, 0.73; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In overall analyses, intensive blood-pressure control had no effect on kidney disease progression. However, there may be differential effects of intensive blood-pressure control in patients with and those without baseline proteinuria. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and others.)

Finerenone in Black Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and CKD: A Post hoc Analysis of the Pooled FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD Trials.

Rationale & Objective: In FIDELITY, finerenone improved cardiorenal outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). This analysis explored the efficacy and safety of finerenone in Black patients. Study Design: Subanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Setting & Participants: Patients with T2D and CKD. Intervention: Finerenone or placebo. Outcomes: Composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure; composite of kidney failure, sustained ≥57% estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline from baseline maintained for ≥4 weeks, or renal death. Results: Of the 13,026 patients, 522 (4.0%) self-identified as Black. Finerenone demonstrated similar effects on the cardiovascular composite outcome in Black (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.51-1.24]) and non-Black patients (HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.79-0.96; P = 0.5 for interaction]). Kidney composite outcomes were consistent in Black (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.43-1.16]) and non-Black patients (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66-0.88; P = 0.9 for interaction]). Finerenone reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio by 40% at month 4 (least-squares mean treatment ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.52-0.69; P < 0.001]) in Black patients and 32% at month 4 (least-squares mean treatment ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.66-0.70; P < 0.001]) in non-Black patients, versus placebo. Chronic eGFR decline (month 4 to end-of-study) was slowed in Black and non-Black patients treated with finerenone versus placebo (between-group difference, 1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year [95% CI, 0.33-2.44; P = 0.01] and 1.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year [95% CI, 0.89-1.28; P < 0.001], respectively). Safety outcomes were similar between subgroups. Limitations: Small number of Black patients; analysis was not originally powered to determine an interaction effect based on Black race. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of finerenone appears consistent in Black and non-Black patients with CKD and T2D. Funding: Bayer AG. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02540993, NCT02545049. Plain-Language Summary: Diabetes is a major cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD), affecting more Black adults than White adults. Most adults with CKD ultimately die from heart and vascular complications (eg, heart attack and stroke) rather than kidney failure. This analysis of 2 recent trials shows that the drug finerenone was beneficial for patients with diabetes and CKD. Along with reducing kidney function decline and protein in the urine, it also decreased heart and vascular issues and lowered blood pressure in both Black and non-Black adults with diabetes and CKD. These findings have promising implications for slowing the progression of CKD and protecting against cardiovascular problems in diverse populations.

Renal outcomes in hypertensive Black patients at high cardiovascular risk.

The ACCOMPLISH trial (Avoiding Cardiovascular events through Combination therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) was a 3-year multicenter, event-driven trial involving patients with high cardiovascular risk who were randomized in a double-blinded manner to benazepril plus either hydrochlorothiazide or amlodipine and titrated in parallel to reach recommended blood pressure goals. Of the 8125 participants in the United States, 1414 were of self-described Black ethnicity. The composite kidney disease end point, defined as a doubling in serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease, or death was not different between Black and non-Black patients, although the Blacks were significantly more likely to develop a greater than 50% increase in serum creatinine to a level above 2.6 mg/dl. We found important early differences in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) due to acute hemodynamic effects, indicating that benazepril plus amlodipine was more effective in stabilizing eGFR compared to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in non-Blacks. There was no difference in the mean eGFR loss in Blacks between therapies. Thus, benazepril coupled to amlodipine was a more effective antihypertensive treatment than when coupled to hydrochlorothiazide in non-Black patients to reduced kidney disease progression. Blacks have a modestly higher increased risk for more advanced increases in serum creatinine than non-Blacks.

Predictors of systolic BP <140 mmHg and systolic BP level by randomly assigned treatment group (benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide) in the ACCOMPLISH Study.

BACKGROUND: The ACCOMPLISH Trial investigated intensive antihypertensive combination treatment with benazepril + amlodipine (B+A) or benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide (B+H) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with systolic hypertension. We analyzed the baseline predictors of achieving a systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mmHg and achieved SBP level by the end of 12 months in both treatment groups. METHODS: Baseline and 12-month SBP was available in 10,506 patients, of whom 6250 had diabetes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used for SBP control at 12 months and multivariable regression models were used for the prediction of SBP at 12 months. A stepwise procedure was used to select significant (p < 0.001) predictors in multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Mean (± SD) BP fell from 145.4/80.1 (± 18.3/10.7) mmHg at randomization to 132.8/74.7 (± 16.0/9.6) mmHg at 12 months. The main baseline predictors of SBP control <140 mmHg were region (USA >Nordic region) and Caucasian ethnicity in both randomization arms. A higher diastolic BP and the use of lipid lowering agents indicated favorable effects in the B+H arm only. The predictors of uncontrolled SBP were: (i) higher baseline SBP values, (ii) higher number of previous antihypertensive medications in both arms, (iii) the previous use of insulin in the B+A arm, and (iv) pre-trial calcium channel blocker (CCB) use in the B+H arm. Additionally, pre-trial use of thiazides and electrocardiogram (ECG)-left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) at baseline predicted higher, and smoking lower absolute SBP in the B+A arm and the use of thiazides and proteinuria a higher SBP in the B+H arm. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of treatment, patients in the USA and Caucasians achieved better SBP control, whereas higher baseline SBP and more previous antihypertensive medications indicated less control. Concomitant use of lipid lowering treatment indicated a better SBP control in the benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide arm. Lastly, insulin use and ECG-LVH in the benazepril + amlodipine arm and proteinuria in the benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide arm indicated poor control.

Self-Reported Antihypertensive Medication Class and Temporal Relationship to Treatment Guidelines.

The greater antihypertensive responses to initial therapy with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) or thiazide-type diuretics than renin-angiotensin system blockers as initial therapy in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) adults was recognized in the US High BP guidelines from 1988 to 2003. The 2014 Report from Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (2014 aJNC8 Report) and the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association High Blood Pressure Guideline were the first to recommend CCBs or thiazide-type diuretics rather than renin-angiotensin system blockers as initial therapy in NHB. We assessed the temporal relationship of these recommendations on self-reported CCB or thiazide-type diuretics monotherapy by NHB and NHW adults with hypertension absent compelling indications for ß-blockers or renin-angiotensin system blockers in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2015 to 2018 versus 2007 to 2012 (after versus before 2014 aJNC8 Report). CCB or thiazide-type diuretics monotherapy was unchanged in NHW adults (17.1% versus 18.1%, P=0.711) and insignificantly higher after 2014 among NHB adults (43.7% versus 38.2%, P=0.204), although CCB monotherapy increased (29.5% versus 21.0%, P=0.021) and renin-angiotensin system blocker monotherapy fell (44.5% versus 31.0%, P=0.008). Although evidence-based CCB monotherapy increased among NHB adults in 2015 to 2018, hypertension control declined as untreated hypertension and monotherapy increased. While a gap between recommended and actual monotherapy persists, evidence-based monotherapy appears insufficient to improve hypertension control in NHB adults, especially given evidence for worsening therapeutic inertia. Initiating treatment with single-pill combinations and timely therapeutic intensification when required to control hypertension are evidence-based, race-neutral options for improving hypertension control among NHB adults.

Renal outcomes with different fixed-dose combination therapies in patients with hypertension at high risk for cardiovascular events (ACCOMPLISH): a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial showed that initial antihypertensive therapy with benazepril plus amlodipine was superior to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We assessed the effects of these drug combinations on progression of chronic kidney disease. METHODS: ACCOMPLISH was a double-blind, randomised trial undertaken in five countries (USA, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland). 11 506 patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events were randomly assigned via a central, telephone-based interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to receive benazepril (20 mg) plus amlodipine (5 mg; n=5744) or benazepril (20 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg; n=5762), orally once daily. Drug doses were force-titrated for patients to attain recommended blood pressure goals. Progression of chronic kidney disease, a prespecified endpoint, was defined as doubling of serum creatinine concentration or end-stage renal disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or need for dialysis). Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170950. FINDINGS: The trial was terminated early (mean follow-up 2.9 years [SD 0.4]) because of superior efficacy of benazepril plus amlodipine compared with benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. At trial completion, vital status was not known for 143 (1%) patients who were lost to follow-up (benazepril plus amlodipine, n=70; benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide, n=73). All randomised patients were included in the ITT analysis. There were 113 (2.0%) events of chronic kidney disease progression in the benazepril plus amlodipine group compared with 215 (3.7%) in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group (HR 0.52, 0.41-0.65, p<0.0001). The most frequent adverse event in patients with chronic kidney disease was peripheral oedema (benazepril plus amlodipine, 189 of 561, 33.7%; benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide, 85 of 532, 16.0%). In patients with chronic kidney disease, angio-oedema was more frequent in the benazepril plus amlodipine group than in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group. In patients without chronic kidney disease, dizziness, hypokalaemia, and hypotension were more frequent in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group than in the benazepril plus amlodipine group. INTERPRETATION: Initial antihypertensive treatment with benazepril plus amlodipine should be considered in preference to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide since it slows progression of nephropathy to a greater extent. FUNDING: Novartis.

Benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal combination drug therapy for hypertension is not established, although current U.S. guidelines recommend inclusion of a diuretic. We hypothesized that treatment with the combination of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker would be more effective in reducing the rate of cardiovascular events than treatment with an ACE inhibitor plus a thiazide diuretic. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 11,506 patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events to receive treatment with either benazepril plus amlodipine or benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. The primary end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitation after sudden cardiac arrest, and coronary revascularization. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. The trial was terminated early after a mean follow-up of 36 months, when the boundary of the prespecified stopping rule was exceeded. Mean blood pressures after dose adjustment were 131.6/73.3 mm Hg in the benazepril-amlodipine group and 132.5/74.4 mm Hg in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide group. There were 552 primary-outcome events in the benazepril-amlodipine group (9.6%) and 679 in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide group (11.8%), representing an absolute risk reduction with benazepril-amlodipine therapy of 2.2% and a relative risk reduction of 19.6% (hazard ratio, 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.90; P<0.001). For the secondary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke, the hazard ratio was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.92; P=0.002). Rates of adverse events were consistent with those observed from clinical experience with the study drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The benazepril-amlodipine combination was superior to the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide combination in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension who were at high risk for such events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00170950.)