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.

Tolerability and blood pressure-lowering efficacy of the combination of amlodipine plus valsartan compared with lisinopril plus hydrochlorothiazide in adult patients with stage 2 hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with hypertension in the United States and Europe fail to achieve the recommended target blood pressure (BP) of <140/90 mm Hg. Combination therapy is required in approximately two thirds of all patients whose BP is >20/10 mm Hg above the goal. Combination therapy with agents having complementary mechanisms of action, such as a calcium channel blocker and an angiotensin II-receptor blacker, would be a potentially useful therapeutic option. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the overall safety profile of combination therapy with amlodipine plus valsartan compared with a combination of lisinopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with stage 2 hypertension (mean sitting diastolic BP [MSDBP] >or=110 and <120 mm Hg) over the short term (6 weeks). A secondary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of the 2 regimens in achieving BP reduction. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with amlodipine 5 to 10 mg + valsartan 160 mg or lisinopril 10 to 20 mg + HCTZ 12.5 rig for 6 weeks. Safety assessments included monitoring of all adverse events, vital signs, and hematology and biochemistry variables. Efficacy variables included the changes from baseline in MSDBP and mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP), the response rate (MSDBP <90 mm Hg, or a >or= 10-mm Hg reduction from baseline), and the rate of DBP control (<90 mm Hg). The overall rate of BP control (proportion of patients with MSSBP/MSDBP <140/90 mm Hg) was evaluated in a post hoc analysis. Efficacy variables were summarized at each visit and at the end of the study (week 6, applying last-observation-carried-forward methodology) using descriptive statistics for the intent-to-treat population (all randomized patients with a baseline BP measurement and at least 1 post baseline BP measurement). Subgroup analyses of BP changes were performed in prespecified age groups (<65 and >or=65 years) and post hoc in patients with a baseline systolic BP <180 and >or=180 mm Hg. RESULTS: : Of 130 patients who were randomized to treatment, 128 completed the study: 63 in the amlodipine + valsartan group and 65 in the lisinopril + HCTZ group. The majority of patients in both groups were white (amlodipine + valsartan: 59.4% lisinopril + HCTZ: 60.6%) and female (57.8% and 54.5%, respectively). The mean age was similar in the 2 groups (56.5 and 57.6 years), as was the mean weight (85.1 and 82.0 kg). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. Adverse events were mild to moderate in severity, and most were not considered related to study drug. At the 6-week end point, both the amlodipine + valsartan and lisinopril + HCTZ groups had achieved significant reductions from baseline in MSSBP (-35.8 [11.8] and -31.8 [14.7] mm Hg, respectively; both, P < 0.001) and MSDBP (-28.6 [7.7] and -27.6 [8.6] mm Hg; both, P < 0.001). Response rates were similar for the 2 treatment groups (100% and 95.5%), as were rates of DBP control (79.7% and 77.3%). CONCLUSIONS: : The combinations of amlodipine 5 to 10 rug + valsartan 160 mg and lisinopril 10 to 20 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg were well tolerated and efficacious, and both treatments were associated with achievement of BP goals in the majority of these adult patients with stage 2 hypertension.

Anemia and change in hemoglobin over time related to mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: results from Val-HeFT.

BACKGROUND: Anemia is known to be a prognostic marker for patients with heart failure. However, little is known about the prognostic value of changes in hemoglobin (Hgb) over time or about the causes of anemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective analysis of Valsartan Heart Failure Trial data indicated that the quartile of patients with the biggest average decrease in Hgb over 12 months (from 14.2 to 12.6 g/dL) had significantly (P< or =0.01) increased risk of subsequent hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47), morbid events (HR, 1.41), and death (HR, 1.6) compared with the quartile that exhibited little change in Hgb over 12 months (from 13.7 to 13.8 g/dL). Increasing Hgb was significantly associated with lower mortality in patients with (HR, 0.78) and without (HR, 0.79) anemia at baseline. Anemia at baseline and the changes in Hgb were independently associated with serum albumin, blood pressure, glomerular filtration rate, B-type natriuretic peptide, and C-reactive protein. Lack of anemia at baseline and increases in Hgb over 12 months were not associated with smaller left ventricular diameters or higher ejection fractions. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in Hgb over 12 months were inversely associated with subsequent risk of mortality and morbidity, independently of the effects of baseline anemia and other important predictors. Several factors were independently related to anemia at baseline and changes in Hgb, suggesting multiple causes of anemia in patients with heart failure. These findings raise important questions about the optimal level of Hgb in patients with moderate to severe heart failure and how to achieve them.

Signs and symptoms in chronic heart failure: relevance of clinical trial results to point of care-data from Val-HeFT.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials emphasize mortality and morbidity endpoints. AIMS: To bring relevance of trial results to point of care by examining the prognostic and therapeutic value of individual signs and symptoms (S&S). METHODS: We analysed data from 5010 patients with stable chronic heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction who were participants in the Val-HeFT study. Individual S&S were stratified by severity. Treatment differences between valsartan and placebo were analysed by S&S strata at baseline and endpoint by logistical regression, and an overall S&S score by ANCOVA. Hazard ratios of S&S strata were calculated for mortality and heart failure hospitalisation. Prognostic contributions of S&S to other variables were determined by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: At endpoint, there were significantly fewer valsartan and more placebo patients with severe symptoms. Over time, improvement in the S&S overall score was significantly more favourable for valsartan than placebo. S&S strata were significantly predictive of risk for hospitalisation and death. S&S were each independent and incremental predictors of mortality compared to other variables. Symptom strata separated out moderately symptomatic patients with a mortality rate which was intermediate between that for NYHA Class II and III. CONCLUSION: Risk stratification of individual S&S defined prognosis, identified patients with an intermediate mortality between Class II and III, and treatment benefits of valsartan over placebo.

Sustained reduction of aldosterone in response to the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: results from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial.

BACKGROUND: Aldosterone has been implicated in the progression of heart failure. The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) provided the first opportunity to examine the long-term effects of an angiotensin receptor blocker on plasma aldosterone levels in patients with NYHA class II through IV heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Plasma aldosterone was measured by radioimmunoassay in core laboratories at baseline and during follow-up in patients assigned to valsartan at a target dose of 160 mg twice daily or placebo. In the placebo group, aldosterone (baseline, 150+/-160 pg/mL, mean+/-SD; n=2025) increased at 4, 12, and 24 months. In the valsartan group, aldosterone (baseline, 137+/-124 pg/mL, mean+/-SD; n=2023) decreased at 4 months and remained suppressed for up to 2 years. At end point (last measurement in each patient), mean aldosterone increased by 17.8+/-3.0 pg/mL (SEM) (11.9%) in the placebo group and decreased by 23.8+/-3.0 pg/mL (SEM) (-17.4%) in the valsartan group (P<0.00001). The effect of valsartan was similar in all subgroups, including those receiving neither ACE inhibitors (ACE-I) nor beta-blockers (BB) at baseline and those receiving concomitant ACE-I or BB. In contrast, outcome effects varied in the 4 subgroups, with a statistically significant reduction in the combined mortality/morbidity end point in those receiving neither neurohormonal inhibitor and an adverse trend in those treated with both drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan added to background therapy for heart failure produces sustained reduction in plasma aldosterone, consistent with the observed significant reduction in the combined mortality/morbidity end point. A similar reduction in all subgroups based on ACE-I or BB therapy, despite differing clinical outcomes in these subgroups, suggests that aldosterone plasma levels may not be a critical marker of the progression of heart failure.

Changes in brain natriuretic peptide and norepinephrine over time and mortality and morbidity in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT).

BACKGROUND: Neurohormones are considered markers of heart failure progression. We examined whether changes in brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and norepinephrine (NE) over time are associated with corresponding changes in mortality and morbidity in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Plasma BNP and NE were measured before randomization and during follow-up in approximately 4300 patients in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial. The relation between baseline BNP and NE and all-cause mortality and first morbid event (M&M) was analyzed in subgroups, with values above and below the median, and by quartiles. The change and percent change from baseline to 4 and 12 months in BNP and NE were also analyzed by quartiles for subsequent M&M. Risk ratios for M&M were calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model. Risk ratio of M&M for patients with baseline BNP or NE above the median was significantly higher than that for patients with values below the median. Baseline BNP and NE in quartiles also showed a quartile-dependent increase in M&M. BNP had a stronger association with M&M than NE. Patients with the greatest percent decrease in BNP and NE from baseline to 4 and 12 months had the lowest whereas patients with greatest percent increase in BNP and NE had the highest M&M. CONCLUSIONS: Not only are plasma BNP and NE important predictors of heart failure M&M, but changes in these neurohormones over time are associated with corresponding changes in M&M. These data further reinforce their role as significant surrogate markers in HF and underscore the importance of including their measurement in HF trials.

Effects of valsartan on circulating brain natriuretic peptide and norepinephrine in symptomatic chronic heart failure: the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT).

BACKGROUND: Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and norepinephrine (NE) are strongly related to severity of and are independent predictors of outcome in heart failure. The long-term effects of angiotensin receptor blockers on BNP and NE in heart failure patients are not known. METHODS AND RESULTS: Both BNP and NE were measured in 4284 patients randomized to valsartan or placebo in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 months after randomization. The effects of valsartan were tested by ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values and concomitant ACE inhibitors and/or beta-blockers. BNP and NE concentrations were similar at baseline in the 2 groups and were decreased by valsartan starting at 4 months and up to 24 months. BNP increased over time in the placebo group. At the end point, least-squares mean (+/-SEM) BNP increased from baseline by 23+/-5 pg/mL in the placebo group (n=1979) but decreased by 21+/-5 pg/mL (n=1940) in the valsartan group (P<0.0001). NE increased by 41+/-6 pg/mL (n=1979) and 12+/-6 pg/mL (n=1941) for placebo and valsartan, respectively (P=0.0003). Concomitant therapy with both ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers significantly reduced the effect of valsartan on BNP but not on NE (P for interaction=0.0223 and 0.2289, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In Val-HeFT, the largest neurohormone study in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure, BNP and NE rose over time in the placebo group. Valsartan caused sustained reduction in BNP and attenuated the increase in NE over the course of the study. These neurohormone effects of valsartan are consistent with the clinical benefits reported in Val-HeFT.

Valsartan benefits left ventricular structure and function in heart failure: Val-HeFT echocardiographic study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of an angiotensin receptor blocker on left ventricular (LV) structure and function when added to prescribed heart failure therapy. BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit derived from heart failure therapy is attributed to the regression of LV remodeling. METHODS: At 302 multinational sites, 5,010 patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification II to IV heart failure taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and/or beta-blocker (BB) were randomized into valsartan and placebo groups and followed for a mean of 22.4 months. Serial echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular internal diastolic diameter (LVIDd) and ejection fraction (EF) were recorded. Total study reproducibility calculated to 90% power at 5% significance defined detectable differences of 0.09 cm for LVIDd and 0.86% for EF. RESULTS: Baseline LVIDd and EF for valsartan and placebo groups were similar: 3.6 +/- 0.5 versus 3.7 +/- 0.5 (cm/m(2)) and 26.6 +/- 7.3 versus 26.9 +/- 7.0 (%). Mean group changes from baseline over time were compared. Significant decrease in LVIDd and increase in EF began by four months, reached plateau by one year, and persisted to two years in valsartan compared with placebo patients, irrespective of age, gender, race, etiology, NYHA classification, and co-treatment therapy. Changes at 18 months were -0.12 +/- 0.4 versus -0.05 +/- 0.4 (cm/m(2)), p < 0.00001 for LVIDd, and +4.5 +/- 8.9 versus +3.2 +/- 8.6 (%), p < 0.00001 for EF. The exception occurred in patients taking both ACEI and BB as co-treatment, in whom the decrease in LVIDd and increase in EF were no different between valsartan and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Val-HeFT echocardiographic substudy of 5,010 patients with moderate heart failure demonstrated that valsartan therapy taken with either ACEI or BB reversed LV remodeling.

Effect of valsartan added to background ACE inhibitor therapy in patients with heart failure: results from Val-HeFT.

AIMS: To investigate the effect of valsartan in the Valsartan-Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) when added to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) alone in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Subjects in Val-HeFT receiving ACEi but not beta-blocker at baseline were analysed; 1532 were assigned to valsartan and 1502 assigned to placebo. Primary outcome events (all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for adjudicated heart failure, sudden death with resuscitation and need for >4 h of parenteral therapy for worsening heart failure) were monitored. RESULTS: Mortality was not affected by valsartan but morbidity endpoints were significantly reduced (36.3% in placebo, 31.0% in valsartan, p=0.002) in patients receiving an ACEi but no beta-blocker. Quality of life (QOL) was significantly improved, ejection fraction (EF) significantly increased, left ventricular (LV) diameter significantly reduced and plasma B-type natriuretic peptide, norepinephrine and aldosterone levels significantly reduced with valsartan compared to placebo. The morbidity benefit was significant in patients on ACEi doses below the median (22% reduction, p=0.003) and not statistically significant in those receiving ACEi doses above the median (14% reduction, p=0.143). CONCLUSION: Valsartan reduces heart failure hospitalisations and slows LV remodelling in patients treated with an ACEi in the absence of beta-blockade, particularly in those on lower doses of ACEi.

Triple antihypertensive therapy with amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide: a randomized clinical trial.

Many patients with hypertension require > or =3 agents to achieve target blood pressure (BP). The efficacy/safety of the dual combinations of valsartan (Val)/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and amlodipine (Aml)/Val in hypertension are well established. This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy/safety of triple therapy with Aml/Val/HCTZ for moderate or severe hypertension (mean sitting systolic BP: > or =145 mm Hg; mean sitting diastolic BP: > or =100 mm Hg). The study included a single-blind, placebo run-in period, followed by double-blind treatment for 8 weeks; patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups titrated to Aml/Val/HCTZ 10/320/25 mg, Val/HCTZ 320/25 mg, Aml/Val 10/320 mg, or Aml/HCTZ 10/25 mg once daily. Dual-therapy recipients received half of the target doses of both agents for the first 2 weeks, titrating to target doses during week 3. Those on triple therapy received Val/HCTZ 160.0/12.5 mg during week 1, Aml/Val/HCTZ 5.0/160.0/12.5 mg during week 2, and target doses of all 3 of the agents during week 3. Of the 4285 patients enrolled, 2271 were randomly assigned to treatment, and 2060 completed the study. Triple therapy was significantly superior to all of the dual therapies in reducing mean sitting systolic BP and mean sitting diastolic BP from baseline to end point (all P<0.0001). Significantly more patients on triple therapy achieved overall BP control (<140/90 mm Hg; P<0.0001) and systolic and diastolic control (P< or =0.0002) compared with each dual therapy. Aml/Val/HCTZ was well tolerated. The benefits of triple therapy over dual therapy were observed regardless of age, sex, race, ethnicity, or baseline mean sitting systolic BP. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the efficacy/safety of treating moderate and severe hypertension with Aml/Val/HCTZ 10/320/25 mg.