Characteristics and long-term follow-up of participants with peripheral arterial disease during ALLHAT.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major risk factor for peripheral artery disease (PAD). Little is known about relative efficacy of antihypertensive treatments for preventing PAD. OBJECTIVES: To compare, by randomized treatment groups, hospitalized or revascularized PAD rates and subsequent morbidity and mortality among participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lower Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, active-control trial in high-risk hypertensive participants. PARTICIPANTS: Eight hundred thirty participants with specified secondary outcome of lower extremity PAD events during the randomized phase of ALLHAT. INTERVENTIONS/EVENTS: In-trial PAD events were reported during ALLHAT (1994-2002). Post-trial mortality data through 2006 were obtained from administrative databases. Mean follow-up was 8.8 years. MAIN MEASURES: Baseline characteristics and intermediate outcomes in three treatment groups, using the Kaplan-Meier method to calculate cumulative event rates and post-PAD mortality rates, Cox proportional hazards regression model for hazard ratios and 95 % confidence intervals, and multivariate Cox regression models to examine risk differences among treatment groups. KEY RESULTS: Following adjustment for baseline characteristics, neither participants assigned to the calcium-channel antagonist amlodipine nor to the ACE-inhibitor lisinopril showed a difference in risk of clinically advanced PAD compared with those in the chlorthalidone arm (HR, 0.86; 95 % CI, 0.72-1.03 and HR, 0.98; 95 % CI, 0.83-1.17, respectively). Of the 830 participants with in-trial PAD events, 63 % died compared to 34 % of those without PAD; there were no significant treatment group differences for subsequent nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularizations, strokes, heart failure, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Neither amlodipine nor lisinopril showed superiority over chlorthalidone in reducing clinically advanced PAD risk. These findings reinforce the compelling need for comparative outcome trials examining treatment of PAD in high-risk hypertensive patients. Once PAD develops, cardiovascular event and mortality risk is high, regardless of type of antihypertensive treatment.

Role of diuretics in the prevention of heart failure: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major cause of heart failure (HF) and is antecedent in 91% of cases. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) stipulated assessment of the relative effect of chlorthalidone, lisinopril, and amlodipine in preventing HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: ALLHAT was a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial in 33,357 high-risk hypertensive patients aged > or =55 years. Hospitalized/fatal HF outcomes were examined with proportional-hazards models. Relative risks (95% confidence intervals; P values) of amlodipine or lisinopril versus chlorthalidone were 1.35 (1.21 to 1.50; <0.001) and 1.11 (0.99 to 1.24; 0.09). The proportional hazards assumption of constant relative risk over time was not valid. A more appropriate model showed relative risks of amlodipine or lisinopril versus chlorthalidone during year 1 were 2.22 (1.69 to 2.91; <0.001) and 2.08 (1.58 to 2.74; <0.001), and after year 1, 1.22 (1.08 to 1.38; P=0.001) and 0.96 (0.85 to 1.10; 0.58). There was no significant interaction between prior medication use and treatment. Baseline blood pressures were equivalent (146/84 mm Hg) and at year 1 were 137/79, 139/79, and 140/80 mm Hg in those given chlorthalidone, amlodipine, and lisinopril. At 1 year, use of added open-label atenolol, diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers in the treatment groups was similar. CONCLUSIONS: HF risk decreased with chlorthalidone versus amlodipine or lisinopril use during year 1. Subsequently, risk for those individuals taking chlorthalidone versus amlodipine remained decreased but less so, whereas it was equivalent to those given lisinopril. Prior medication use, follow-up blood pressures, and concomitant medications are unlikely to explain most of the HF differences. Diuretics are superior to calcium channel blockers and, at least in the short term, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in preventing HF in hypertensive individuals.

Cardiovascular outcomes using doxazosin vs. chlorthalidone for the treatment of hypertension in older adults with and without glucose disorders: a report from the ALLHAT study.

Insulin resistance underlies most glucose disorders in adults and is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Alpha blockers decrease insulin resistance, whereas diuretics increase insulin resistance. The authors studied the effects of these two classes of hypertension medications (doxazosin, an a blocker, and chlorthalidone, a diuretic) on cardiovascular disease outcomes in adults aged >55 years with hypertension and glucose disorders who were participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (8749 had known diabetes mellitus and 1690 had a newly diagnosed glucose disorder [fasting glucose >/=110 mg/dL]). There was no difference in either group between the chlorthalidone- and doxazosin-based treatments with regard to fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality. There was, however, a difference for combined cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, revascularization procedures, angina, stroke, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease) in favor of the diuretic. This difference was due primarily to an increased heart failure risk in those treated with doxazosin (relative risk, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.19) in the known diabetes mellitus group and a relative risk of 1.63 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.55) in those with a newly diagnosed glucose disorder despite lower glucose levels on follow-up in those treated with a blockers. The authors conclude that treatment of hypertension with doxazosin in adults with glucose disorders incurs the same risk of coronary heart disease as treatment with chlorthalidone; however, treatment with doxazosin increases the risk of combined cardiovascular disease and heart failure despite lower glucose levels.

Randomized trial of pharmacist interventions to improve depression care and outcomes in primary care.

PURPOSE: The impact of pharmacist interventions on the care and outcomes of patients with depression in a primary care setting was evaluated. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with a new episode of depression and started on anti-depressant medications were randomized to enhanced care (EC) or usual care (UC) for one year. EC consisted of a pharmacist collaborating with primary care providers to facilitate patient education, the initiation and adjustment of antidepressant dosages, the monitoring of patient adherence to the regimen, the management of adverse reactions, and the prevention of relapse. The patients in the UC group served as controls. Outcomes were measured by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, criteria for major depression, health-related quality of life, medication adherence, patient satisfaction, and use of depression-related health care services. An intent-to-treat analysis was used. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were randomized to EC or UC. At baseline, the EC group included more patients diagnosed with major depression than did the UC group (p = 0.04). All analyses were adjusted for this difference. In both groups, mean scores significantly improved from baseline for symptoms of depression and quality of life at three months and were maintained for one year. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in depression symptoms, quality of life, medication adherence, provider visits, or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Frequent telephone contacts and interventions by pharmacists and UC in a primary care setting resulted in similar rates of adherence to antidepressant regimens and improvements in the outcomes of depression at one year.

Effect of high altitude on blood glucose meter performance.

Participation in high-altitude wilderness activities may expose persons to extreme environmental conditions, and for those with diabetes mellitus, euglycemia is important to ensure safe travel. We conducted a field assessment of the precision and accuracy of seven commonly used blood glucose meters while mountaineering on Mount Rainier, located in Washington State (elevation 14,410 ft). At various elevations each climber-subject used the randomly assigned device to measure the glucose level of capillary blood and three different concentrations of standardized control solutions, and a venous sample was also collected for later glucose analysis. Ordinary least squares regression was used to assess the effect of elevation and of other environmental potential covariates on the precision and accuracy of blood glucose meters. Elevation affects glucometer precision (p = 0.08), but becomes less significant (p = 0.21) when adjusted for temperature and relative humidity. The overall effect of elevation was to underestimate glucose levels by approximately 1-2% (unadjusted) for each 1,000 ft gain in elevation. Blood glucose meter accuracy was affected by elevation (p = 0.03), temperature (p < 0.01), and relative humidity (p = 0.04) after adjustment for the other variables. The interaction between elevation and relative humidity had a meaningful but not statistically significant effect on accuracy (p = 0.07). Thus, elevation, temperature, and relative humidity affect blood glucose meter performance, and elevated glucose levels are more greatly underestimated at higher elevations. Further research will help to identify which blood glucose meters are best suited for specific environments.

A multifaceted intervention in support of diabetes treatment guidelines: a cont trial.

OBJECTIVE: in an academic family practice clinic, we performed a controlled trial of a multifaceted intervention versus usual care for managing diabetes. Providers received didactic training and computerized compliance feedback to support staged diabetes management, an evidenced-based approach to diabetes care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: one firm of the clinic practice received the intervention, the other served as the control group during a 14-month baseline period and a 14-month study period. HbA1(c) was the principal outcome measure. RESULTS: there was a significant 0.71% difference in change in HbA1(c) values between the intervention and control firms (P=0.02). The subgroup with the greatest improvement in HbA1(c) was those subjects who started the intervention with a HbA1(c) above 8%. The overall improvement in glycemic control could not be explained by differences in visit frequency or the aggressiveness of drug therapy. There were no changes in healthcare utilization or costs between the two firms. CONCLUSION: in an academic family practice clinic, a multifaceted intervention in support of diabetes treatment guidelines modestly improved glycemic control without incurring additional costs. The improvement was mostly due to mitigation of the natural deterioration in control usually seen. Further efforts are required to involve all patients in co-managing their diabetes.

Collaborative care model to improve outcomes in major depression.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a pharmacist intervention to improve depression care and outcomes within a primary care setting. METHODS: Pragmatic, randomized trial of a clinical pharmacist collaborative care intervention versus usual care in a busy, academic family practice clinic. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients diagnosed with a new episode of major depression and started on antidepressant medications were randomized to enhanced care (EC) or usual care (UC) groups. EC consists of a clinical pharmacist collaborating with primary care providers (PCPs) to facilitate education, initiation, and titration of acute-phase antidepressant treatment to monitor treatment adherence and to prevent relapse. Control patients receive UC by their PCP. The main end point is reduction of depression symptoms over time as measured by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20). Other outcomes include the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (DSM-IV) criteria for major depression, health-related quality of life measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 12 (SF-12), medication adherence, patient satisfaction, and healthcare utilization. The main end point and the cost of treating major depression will be used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the collaborative care model. CONCLUSIONS: The study is a unique, ongoing trial that may have important implications for the treatment of depression in primary care settings as well as new roles for clinical pharmacists.