Blood Pressure Intervention and Control in SPRINT.

BACKGROUND: The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) demonstrated reductions in major cardiovascular disease events and mortality with an intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal intervention. However, a detailed description of the blood pressure intervention, antihypertensive medication usage, blood pressure levels, and rates and predictors of blood pressure control has not been reported previously. METHODS: Hypertensive participants (n=9361) 50 years and older with elevated cardiovascular disease risk were randomized 1:1 to SBP goal <120 mm Hg or SBP goal <140 mm Hg. Guideline-recommended antihypertensive medications and dosing were provided at no cost. Intensive group participants were started on at least 2 medications, and medications were adjusted monthly until SBP goal was achieved, if feasible. Standard group participants were treated to achieve SBP 135 to 139 mm Hg. RESULTS: Baseline blood pressure (median±interquartile range) was 138±19/78±16 mm Hg. For intensive group participants, percent at goal rose from 8.9% at baseline to 52.4% at 6 months and average antihypertensive medications rose from 2.2 to 2.7; SBP was <120 mm Hg in 61.6% and <130 mm Hg in 80.0% at their final visit. For the standard group participants, percent at goal rose from 53.0% at baseline to 68.6% at 6 months, while antihypertensive medications fell from 1.9 to 1.8. From 6 to 36 months, median SBP was stable at 119±14 mm Hg for intensive and 136±15 mm Hg for standard participants, with stable numbers of medications. Few predictors of SBP control were found in multiple regression models. CONCLUSIONS: These results may inform and help replicate the benefits of SPRINT in clinical practice. REGISTRATION: URL: http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

SPRINT Revisited: Updated Results and Implications.

The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) results have influenced clinical practice but have also generated discussion regarding the validity, generalizability, and importance of the findings. Following the SPRINT primary results manuscript in 2015, additional results and analyses of the data have addressed these concerns. The primary objective of this article is to respond to key questions that have been raised.

Final Report of a Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

BACKGROUND: In a previously reported randomized trial of standard and intensive systolic blood-pressure control, data on some outcome events had yet to be adjudicated and post-trial follow-up data had not yet been collected. METHODS: We randomly assigned 9361 participants who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease but did not have diabetes or previous stroke to adhere to an intensive treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <140 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Additional primary outcome events occurring through the end of the intervention period (August 20, 2015) were adjudicated after data lock for the primary analysis. We also analyzed post-trial observational follow-up data through July 29, 2016. RESULTS: At a median of 3.33 years of follow-up, the rate of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality during the trial were significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (rate of the primary outcome, 1.77% per year vs. 2.40% per year; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.86; all-cause mortality, 1.06% per year vs. 1.41% per year; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92). Serious adverse events of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, acute kidney injury or failure, and syncope were significantly more frequent in the intensive-treatment group. When trial and post-trial follow-up data were combined (3.88 years in total), similar patterns were found for treatment benefit and adverse events; however, rates of heart failure no longer differed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who were at increased cardiovascular risk, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality than targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg, both during receipt of the randomly assigned therapy and after the trial. Rates of some adverse events were higher in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

Association of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control With Cerebral White Matter Lesions.

Importance: The effect of intensive blood pressure lowering on brain health remains uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the association of intensive blood pressure treatment with cerebral white matter lesion and brain volumes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A substudy of a multicenter randomized clinical trial of hypertensive adults 50 years or older without a history of diabetes or stroke at 27 sites in the United States. Randomization began on November 8, 2010. The overall trial was stopped early because of benefit for its primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular events) and all-cause mortality on August 20, 2015. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on a subset of participants at baseline (n = 670) and at 4 years of follow-up (n = 449); final follow-up date was July 1, 2016. Interventions: Participants were randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of either less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment, n = 355) or less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment, n = 315). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in total white matter lesion volume from baseline. Change in total brain volume was a secondary outcome. Results: Among 670 recruited patients who had baseline MRI (mean age, 67.3 [SD, 8.2] years; 40.4% women), 449 (67.0%) completed the follow-up MRI at a median of 3.97 years after randomization, after a median intervention period of 3.40 years. In the intensive treatment group, based on a robust linear mixed model, mean white matter lesion volume increased from 4.57 to 5.49 cm3 (difference, 0.92 cm3 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.14]) vs an increase from 4.40 to 5.85 cm3 (difference, 1.45 cm3 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.70]) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference in change, -0.54 cm3 [95% CI, -0.87 to -0.20]). Mean total brain volume decreased from 1134.5 to 1104.0 cm3 (difference, -30.6 cm3 [95% CI, -32.3 to -28.8]) in the intensive treatment group vs a decrease from 1134.0 to 1107.1 cm3 (difference, -26.9 cm3 [95% CI, 24.8 to 28.8]) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference in change, -3.7 cm3 [95% CI, -6.3 to -1.1]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among hypertensive adults, targeting an SBP of less than 120 mm Hg, compared with less than 140 mm Hg, was significantly associated with a smaller increase in cerebral white matter lesion volume and a greater decrease in total brain volume, although the differences were small. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Control on Probable Dementia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are currently no proven treatments to reduce the risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Objective: To evaluate the effect of intensive blood pressure control on risk of dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 102 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico among adults aged 50 years or older with hypertension but without diabetes or history of stroke. Randomization began on November 8, 2010. The trial was stopped early for benefit on its primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular events) and all-cause mortality on August 20, 2015. The final date for follow-up of cognitive outcomes was July 22, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to a systolic blood pressure goal of either less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment group; n = 4678) or less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment group; n = 4683). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary cognitive outcome was occurrence of adjudicated probable dementia. Secondary cognitive outcomes included adjudicated mild cognitive impairment and a composite outcome of mild cognitive impairment or probable dementia. Results: Among 9361 randomized participants (mean age, 67.9 years; 3332 women [35.6%]), 8563 (91.5%) completed at least 1 follow-up cognitive assessment. The median intervention period was 3.34 years. During a total median follow-up of 5.11 years, adjudicated probable dementia occurred in 149 participants in the intensive treatment group vs 176 in the standard treatment group (7.2 vs 8.6 cases per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.04). Intensive BP control significantly reduced the risk of mild cognitive impairment (14.6 vs 18.3 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95) and the combined rate of mild cognitive impairment or probable dementia (20.2 vs 24.1 cases per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.97). Conclusions and Relevance: Among ambulatory adults with hypertension, treating to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg compared with a goal of less than 140 mm Hg did not result in a significant reduction in the risk of probable dementia. Because of early study termination and fewer than expected cases of dementia, the study may have been underpowered for this end point. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Blood Pressure Measurement in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial).

Recent publications have stated that the blood pressure (BP) measurement technique used in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was unattended. However, the SPRINT protocol does not address the issue of attendance. A survey was conducted immediately after SPRINT closeout visits were completed to inquire whether BP measurements were usually attended or unattended by staff. There were 4082 participants at 38 sites that measured BP after leaving the participant alone the entire time (always alone), 2247 at 25 sites that had personnel in the room the entire time (never alone), 1746 at 19 sites that left the participant alone only during the rest period (alone for rest), and 570 at 6 sites that left the participant alone only during the BP readings (alone for BP measurement). Similar systolic and diastolic BPs within randomized groups were noted during follow-up at the majority of visits in all 4 measurement categories. In the always alone and never alone categories, the intensive group had a similarly reduced risk for the primary outcome compared with the standard group (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.76 and hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91, respectively; pairwise interaction P value, 0.88); risk was not significantly reduced for the intensive group in the smaller alone-for-rest and the alone-for-BP-measurement categories. Similar BP levels and cardiovascular disease risk reduction were observed in the intensive group in SPRINT participants whether the measurement technique used was primarily attended or unattended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Influence of Prevalent and Incident Atrial Fibrillation on Post-Trial Major Events in ALLHAT.

AIMS: Limited information is available on long-term antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy effects on hypertensive patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL) compared to those without. AF/AFL at baseline or during the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) (mean follow-up 4.9 years) markedly increased risk of stroke, heart failure, CHD, and all-cause mortality. We aimed to determine if AF/AFL continued to impact outcomes during post-trial follow-up (mean 3.8 years). METHODS: Patients were randomized to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril, and to pravastatin vs. usual care in the lipid-lowering trial (LLT). Of 31,473 available subjects, AF/AFL occurred in 854; 383/14,371 chlorthalidone (2.7%), 247/8565 amlodipine (2.9%), and 224/8537 lisinopril (2.6%). Post-hoc analyses utilized administrative databases for post-trial data. Individuals with AF/AFL were compared to those without during post-trial. Outcomes were analyzed by treatment groups for the antihypertensive and LLT trials. RESULTS: Among 854 AF/AFL participants, 491 (57.5%) died: 220 in-trial, 271 post-trial. Ten-year all-cause mortality rates for those with in-trial AF/AFL were similar for chlorthalidone and lisinopril, but lower for amlodipine (68, 66, and 49 per 100 persons, respectively); adjusted HR for amlodipine vs. chlorthalidone was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.54-0.87). Ten-year all-cause mortality rates were 57 vs. 65 per 100 persons (pravastatin vs. usual care); non-CVD mortality rates, 18 vs. 39 per 100 persons (pravastatin vs. usual care) (adjusted HR = 0.46, 95% CI, 0.24-0.86). CONCLUSION: Post-trial follow-up revealed continued deleterious AF/AFL effects. The amlodipine (ALLHAT) and pravastatin (ALLHAT-LLT) treatment groups showed lower all-cause and non-CVD mortality compared to the chlorthalidone and usual-care groups, respectively.

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

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

Orthostatic Hypotension in the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) Blood Pressure Trial: Prevalence, Incidence, and Prognostic Significance.

Orthostatic hypotension (OH) is associated with hypertension and diabetes mellitus. However, in populations with both hypertension and diabetes mellitus, its prevalence, the effect of intensive versus standard systolic blood pressure (BP) targets on incident OH, and its prognostic significance are unclear. In 4266 participants in the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) BP trial, seated BP was measured 3×, followed by readings every minute for 3 minutes after standing. Orthostatic BP change, calculated as the minimum standing minus the mean seated systolic BP and diastolic BP, was assessed at baseline, 12 months, and 48 months. The relationship between OH and clinical outcomes (total and cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, heart failure hospitalization or death and the primary composite outcome of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death) was assessed using proportional hazards analysis. Consensus OH, defined by orthostatic decline in systolic BP ≥20 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥10 mm Hg, occurred at ≥1 time point in 20% of participants. Neither age nor systolic BP treatment target (intensive, <120 mm Hg versus standard, <140 mm Hg) was related to OH incidence. Over a median follow-up of 46.9 months, OH was associated with increased risk of total death (hazard ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.36) and heart failure death/hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.85, 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.93), but not with the primary outcome or other prespecified outcomes. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension, OH was common, not associated with intensive versus standard BP treatment goals, and predicted increased mortality and heart failure events.

Chronic Kidney Disease Classification in Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial: Comparison Using Modification of Diet in Renal Disease and CKD-Epidemiology Collaboration Definitions.

BACKGROUND: Interventional trials have used either the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) or chronic kidney disease (CKD)-Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation for determination of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to define whether participants have stages 3-5 CKD. The equation used to calculate eGFR may influence the number and characteristics of participants designated as having CKD. METHODS: We examined the classification of CKD at baseline using both equations in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). eGFR was calculated at baseline using fasting serum creatinine values from a central laboratory. RESULTS: Among 9,308 participants with baseline CKD classification using the 4-variable MDRD equation specified in the SPRINT protocol, 681 (7.3%) participants were reclassified to a less advanced CKD stage (higher eGFR) and 346 (3.7%) were reclassified to a more advanced CKD stage (lower eGFR) when the CKD-EPI equation was used to calculate eGFR. For eGFRs <90 ml/min/1.73 m2, participants <75 years were more likely to be reclassified to a less advanced CKD stage; this reclassification was more likely to occur in non-blacks rather than blacks. Participants aged ≥75 years were more likely to be reclassified to a more advanced than a less advanced CKD stage, regardless of baseline CKD stage. Reclassification of baseline CKD status (eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2) occurred in 3% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the MDRD equation led to a higher percentage of participants being classified as having CKD stages 3-4. Younger and non-black participants were more likely to be reclassified as not having CKD using the CKD-EPI equation.

A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

BACKGROUND: The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 9361 persons with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. The intervention was stopped early after a median follow-up of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (1.65% per year vs. 2.19% per year; hazard ratio with intensive treatment, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.90; P=0.003). Rates of serious adverse events of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, and acute kidney injury or failure, but not of injurious falls, were higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause, although significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

Outcomes of combined cardiovascular risk factor management strategies in type 2 diabetes: the ACCORD randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of combinations of standard and intensive treatment of glycemia and either blood pressure (BP) or lipids in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: ACCORD enrolled 10,251 type 2 diabetes patients aged 40-79 years at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Participants were randomly assigned to hemoglobin A1c goals of <6.0% (<42 mmol/mol; intensive glycemia) or 7.0-7.9% (53-63 mmol/mol; standard glycemia) and then randomized a second time to either 1) systolic BP goals of <120 mmHg (intensive BP) or <140 mmHg (standard BP) or 2) simvastatin plus fenofibrate (intensive lipid) or simvastatin plus placebo (standard lipid). Proportional hazards models were used to assess combinations of treatment assignments on the composite primary (deaths due to CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], and nonfatal stroke) and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: In the BP trial, risk of the primary outcome was lower in the groups intensively treated for glycemia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.91), BP (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.55-1.00), or both (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.52-0.96) compared with combined standard BP and glycemia treatment. For secondary outcomes, MI was significantly reduced by intensive glycemia treatment and stroke by intensive BP treatment; most other HRs were neutral or favored intensive treatment groups. In the lipid trial, the general pattern of results showed no evidence of benefit of intensive regimens (whether single or combined) compared with combined standard lipid and glycemia treatment. The mortality HR was 1.33 (95% CI 1.02-1.74) in the standard lipid/intensive glycemia group compared with the standard lipid/standard glycemia group. CONCLUSIONS: In the ACCORD BP trial, compared with combined standard treatment, intensive BP or intensive glycemia treatment alone improved major CVD outcomes, without additional benefit from combining the two. In the ACCORD lipid trial, neither intensive lipid nor glycemia treatment produced an overall benefit, but intensive glycemia treatment increased mortality.

How much effect of different antihypertensive medications on cardiovascular outcomes is attributable to their effects on blood pressure?

The debate over whether certain antihypertensive medications have benefits beyond what would be expected from their blood pressure lowering spurred the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial, which randomized 42,418 participants to chlorthalidone (15,255), amlodipine (9048), lisinopril (9054), or doxazosin (9061). We compared chlorthalidone, the active control, with each of the other three agents with respect to the primary outcome, fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction, and several other clinical endpoints. The arms were similar with respect to the primary endpoint, although some differences were found for other endpoints, most notably heart failure. Although the desire was to achieve similar blood pressure reductions in the four arms, we found some systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure differences. A natural question is to what degree can observed treatment group differences in cardiovascular outcomes be attributed to these blood pressure differences. The purpose of this paper was to delineate the problems inherent in attempting to answer this question, and to present analyses intended to overcome these problems.

Long-term renal and cardiovascular outcomes in Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) participants by baseline estimated GFR.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: CKD is common among older patients. This article assesses long-term renal and cardiovascular outcomes in older high-risk hypertensive patients, stratified by baseline estimated GFR (eGFR), and long-term outcome efficacy of 5-year first-step treatment with amlodipine or lisinopril, each compared with chlorthalidone. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This was a long-term post-trial follow-up of hypertensive participants (n=31,350), aged ≥55 years, randomized to receive chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril for 4-8 years at 593 centers. Participants were stratified by baseline eGFR (ml/min per 1.73 m(2)) as follows: normal/increased (≥90; n=8027), mild reduction (60-89; n=17,778), and moderate/severe reduction (<60; n=5545). Outcomes were cardiovascular mortality (primary outcome), total mortality, coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, stroke, heart failure, and ESRD. RESULTS: After an average 8.8-year follow-up, total mortality was significantly higher in participants with moderate/severe eGFR reduction compared with those with normal and mildly reduced eGFR (P<0.001). In participants with an eGFR <60, there was no significant difference in cardiovascular mortality between chlorthalidone and amlodipine (P=0.64), or chlorthalidone and lisinopril (P=0.56). Likewise, no significant differences were observed for total mortality, coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, stroke, or ESRD. CONCLUSIONS: CKD is associated with significantly higher long-term risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in older hypertensive patients. By eGFR stratum, 5-year treatment with amlodipine or lisinopril was not superior to chlorthalidone in preventing cardiovascular events, mortality, or ESRD during 9-year follow-up. Because data on proteinuria were not available, these findings may not be extrapolated to proteinuric CKD.

Hypertension control among newly treated patients before and after publication of the main ALLHAT results and JNC 7 guidelines.

Medication prescribing practice changed following the publications of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) in 2002 and the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) in 2003. Few data are available on changes in hypertension control rates for patients initiating antihypertensive treatment before and after these publications. The authors compared systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) levels and hypertension control (SBP <140 mm Hg and DBP <90 mm Hg) rates in patients initiating antihypertensive treatment in a large managed care organization during 2 time periods: July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002 (n=322); and July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004 (n=323). The blood pressure reduction associated with antihypertensive medication initiation was similar in 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 (-11.9 and -10.5 mm Hg, respectively, P=.251 for SBP; -6.9 and -5.9 mm Hg, respectively, P=.160 for DBP). The mean SBP and DBP prior to treatment were significantly lower in 2003-2004 vs 2001-2002 (145.4 vs 151.3 mm Hg, P<.001 for SBP; 87.6 vs 90.1 mm Hg, P<.002 for DBP). Hypertension control rates increased from 38.0% to 50.2% (P=.005) from 2001-2002 to 2003-2004. Lower pretreatment SBP and DBP explained hypertension control improvement over time. In this real-world clinic population, antihypertensive treatment was initiated at lower blood pressure levels following publication of ALLHAT and JNC 7, resulting in substantial improvements in hypertension control rates.

Long-term effects of incident diabetes mellitus on cardiovascular outcomes in people treated for hypertension: the ALLHAT Diabetes Extension Study.

BACKGROUND: Thiazide-type diuretics are associated with an increased incidence of diabetes compared with other antihypertensive medications. In this study, we determined the long-term cardiovascular disease (CVD) consequences of incident diuretic-associated diabetes compared with the effects of incident diabetes associated with calcium channel blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 22 418 participants from the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) with baseline diabetes, incident diabetes (7.5% with chlorthalidone, 5.6% with amlodipine, and 4.3% with lisinopril), or no diabetes at 2 years of in-trial follow-up were followed for a mean total of 6.9 years (2.9 years in-trial and 4 additional years posttrial) through the use of national databases. The primary outcome was CVD mortality (death from coronary heart disease [CHD], stroke, heart failure, or other CVD). Among other outcomes were all-cause mortality, non-CVD mortality, and CHD (nonfatal myocardial infarction or fatal CHD). Participants on chlorthalidone with incident diabetes versus no diabetes had consistently lower, nonsignificant risk for CVD mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74-1.47), all-cause mortality (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.30), and non-CVD mortality (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.77-1.42) than participants on amlodipine or lisinopril with incident diabetes (HR range, 1.22-1.53). Participants with incident diabetes had elevated CHD risk compared with those with no diabetes (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.09-1.96), but those on chlorthalidone had significantly lower risk than those on lisinopril (HR, 1.18 versus 2.57; P=0.04 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that thiazide-related incident diabetes has less adverse long-term CVD impact than incident diabetes that develops while on other antihypertensive medications.

Mortality and morbidity during and after the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial.

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter trial assigned 32,804 participants aged 55 years and older with hypertension and ≥ 1 other coronary heart disease risk factors to receive chlorthalidone (n=15,002), amlodipine (n=8898), or lisinopril (n=8904) for 4 to 8 years, when double-blinded therapy was discontinued. Passive surveillance continued for a total follow-up of 8 to 13 years using national administrative databases to ascertain deaths and hospitalizations. During the post-trial period, fatal outcomes and nonfatal outcomes were available for 98% and 65% of participants, respectively, due to lack of access to administrative databases for the remainder. This paper assesses whether mortality and morbidity differences persisted or new differences developed during the extended follow-up. Primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality and secondary outcomes were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and end-stage renal disease. For the post-trial period, data are not available on medications or blood pressure levels. No significant differences (P<.05) appeared in cardiovascular mortality for amlodipine (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.06) or lisinopril (HR, 0.97; CI, 0.90-1.03), each compared with chlorthalidone. The only significant differences in secondary outcomes were for heart failure, which was higher with amlodipine (HR, 1.12; CI, 1.02-1.22), and stroke mortality, which was higher with lisinopril (HR, 1.20; CI, 1.01-1.41), each compared with chlorthalidone. Similar to the previously reported in-trial result, there was a significant treatment-by-race interaction for cardiovascular disease for lisinopril vs chlorthalidone. Black participants had higher risk than non-black participants taking lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone. After accounting for multiple comparisons, none of these results were significant. These findings suggest that neither calcium channel blockers nor angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are superior to diuretics for the long-term prevention of major cardiovascular complications of hypertension.

Prevalence and incidence of hypertension in adolescent girls.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence and incidence of hypertension and prehypertension and associated factors in adolescent girls. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 2368 girls (49% Caucasian, 51% African-American) aged 9 or 10 years enrolled in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study had blood pressure, height, and weight measured at annual visits through age 18 to 19 years. Prevalence and incidence of hypertension and prehypertension were calculated. RESULTS: On the basis of 2 visits, hypertension prevalence was approximately 1% to 2% in African-American girls and 0.5% in Caucasian girls. Incidence in 8 years was 5.0% and 2.1%, respectively. Obese girls had higher prevalence (approximately 6-fold higher) and incidence (approximately 2- to 3-fold higher) compared with girls of normal weight. Similar patterns were found for prehypertension, except that prehypertension occurred more in older girls than younger girls. Dietary factors (lower intake of fiber, potassium, magnesium, and calcium, and higher intake of caffeine and calories) were each associated with hypertension incidence (all P<.05). In multivariate analysis, higher body mass index (P<.001) and lower potassium intake (P=.023) were independently associated with incidence of hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension occurred early in childhood and was related to obesity and other modifiable lifestyle factors. Clinicians should monitor blood pressure during childhood and provide focused diet and physical activity guidance to minimize the development of hypertension.