Long-term follow-up of participants with heart failure in the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT).

BACKGROUND: In the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a randomized, double-blind, practice-based, active-control, comparative effectiveness trial in high-risk hypertensive participants, risk of new-onset heart failure (HF) was higher in the amlodipine (2.5-10 mg/d) and lisinopril (10-40 mg/d) arms compared with the chlorthalidone (12.5-25 mg/d) arm. Similar to other studies, mortality rates following new-onset HF were very high (≥50% at 5 years), and were similar across randomized treatment arms. After the randomized phase of the trial ended in 2002, outcomes were determined from administrative databases. METHODS AND RESULTS: With the use of national databases, posttrial follow-up mortality through 2006 was obtained on participants who developed new-onset HF during the randomized (in-trial) phase of ALLHAT. Mean follow-up for the entire period was 8.9 years. Of 1761 participants with incident HF in-trial, 1348 died. Post-HF all-cause mortality was similar across treatment groups, with adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 0.95 (0.81-1.12) and 1.05 (0.89-1.25), respectively, for amlodipine and lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone, and 10-year adjusted rates of 86%, 87%, and 83%, respectively. All-cause mortality rates were also similar among those with reduced ejection fractions (84%) and preserved ejection fractions (81%), with no significant differences by randomized treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Once HF develops, risk of death is high and consistent across randomized treatment groups. Measures to prevent the development of HF, especially blood pressure control, must be a priority if mortality associated with the development of HF is to be addressed. Clinical Trial Registration- http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000542.

Clinical outcomes by race in hypertensive patients with and without the metabolic syndrome: Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive drugs with favorable metabolic effects are advocated for first-line therapy in hypertensive patients with metabolic/cardiometabolic syndrome (MetS). We compared outcomes by race in hypertensive individuals with and without MetS treated with a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besylate), an alpha-blocker (doxazosin mesylate), or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril). METHODS: A subgroup analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a randomized, double-blind hypertension treatment trial of 42 418 participants. We defined MetS as hypertension plus at least 2 of the following: fasting serum glucose level of at least 100 mg/dL, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of at least 30, fasting triglyceride levels of at least 150 mg/dL, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of less than 40 mg/dL in men or less than 50 mg/dL in women. RESULTS: Significantly higher rates of heart failure were consistent across all treatment comparisons in those with MetS. Relative risks (RRs) were 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.90), 1.49 (1.17-1.90), and 1.88 (1.42-2.47) in black participants and 1.25 (1.06-1.47), 1.20 (1.01-1.41), and 1.82 (1.51-2.19) in nonblack participants for amlodipine, lisinopril, and doxazosin comparisons with chlorthalidone, respectively. Higher rates for combined cardiovascular disease were observed with lisinopril-chlorthalidone (RRs, 1.24 [1.09-1.40] and 1.10 [1.02-1.19], respectively) and doxazosin-chlorthalidone comparisons (RRs, 1.37 [1.19-1.58] and 1.18 [1.08-1.30], respectively) in black and nonblack participants with MetS. Higher rates of stroke were seen in black participants only (RR, 1.37 [1.07-1.76] for the lisinopril-chlorthalidone comparison, and RR, 1.49 [1.09-2.03] for the doxazosin-chlorthalidone comparison). Black patients with MetS also had higher rates of end-stage renal disease (RR, 1.70 [1.13-2.55]) with lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone. CONCLUSIONS: The ALLHAT findings fail to support the preference for calcium channel blockers, alpha-blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors compared with thiazide-type diuretics in patients with the MetS, despite their more favorable metabolic profiles. This was particularly true for black participants.

Risk of hospitalized gastrointestinal bleeding in persons randomized to diuretic, ACE-inhibitor, or calcium-channel blocker in ALLHAT.

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are an important class of medication useful in the treatment of hypertension. Several observational studies have suggested an association between CCB therapy and gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage. Using administrative databases, the authors re-examined in a post-hoc analysis whether the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) participants randomized to the CCB amlodipine had a greater risk of hospitalized GI bleeding (a prespecified outcome) compared with those randomized to the diuretic chlorthalidone or the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril. Participants randomized to chlorthalidone did not have a reduced risk for GI bleeding hospitalizations compared with participants randomized to amlodipine (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.28). Those randomized to lisinopril were at increased risk of GI bleeding compared with those randomized to chlorthalidone (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00-1.36). In a post-hoc comparison, participants assigned to lisinopril therapy had a higher risk of hospitalized GI hemorrhage (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.51) vs those assigned to amlodipine. In-study use of atenolol prior to first GI hemorrhage was related to a lower incidence of GI bleeding (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57-0.83). Hypertensive patients on amlodipine do not have an increased risk of GI bleeding hospitalizations compared with those taking either chlorthalidone or lisinopril.

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

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

Current trends in imaging evaluation of acute cholecystitis.

This study was designed to retrospectively determine recent clinical trends of initial radiological evaluation in patients pathologically proven to have acute cholecystitis (AC) and to assess the methodology that led to its diagnosis. Over a 28-month period, the medical records and imaging studies of 117 consecutive patients who had pathologically confirmed AC were retrospectively analyzed. The sensitivities of ultrasound (US) and hepatobiliary 99mTc-iminodiacetic acid (HIDA) were computed. The false-negative scans were retrospectively reviewed by a blinded radiologist to determine the limitations and advantages of each modality. The 117 patients were grouped into six categories based on the type of imaging examination they underwent prior to cholecystectomy: initial US evaluation only (n=80, 68.4%), initial US followed by HIDA (n=17, 14.5%), initial HIDA only (n=2, 1.7%), initial HIDA followed by US (n=3, 2.6%), initial CT (n=5, 4.3%), and no imaging evaluation (n=10, 8.6%). HIDA scan had a calculated sensitivity of 90.9% (20 true-positive, 2 false-negative) while US had a sensitivity of 62% (62 true-positive, 38 false-negative). Current practice in the initial radiological evaluation of acute cholecystitis remains outdated. The vast majority of patients in our study group were initially worked up using US, although HIDA scan has been shown to have greater sensitivity for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis.