Search

Presents a study, the objective of which is to assess the effect of low-dose, diuretic-based antihypertensive treatment on major cardiovascular disease event rates in older, non-insulin-treated diabetic patients with isolated systolic hypertension, compared with nondiabetic patients. Design; Setting; Participants; Intervention; Main outcome measures; Results; Conclusion.

Presents a study which was conducted to examine the influence of long-term, low-dose, diuretic-based, antihypertensive therapy on glucose, lipid, uric acid and potassium levels in older men and women with systolic hypertension. Reference to previous studies; Method used in this study; Results of this study.

A response by Mahboob Rahman to a letter to the editor about his article "Renal Outcomes in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients Treated with an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or a Calcium Channel Blocker vs. a Diuretic: A Report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial" in the 2005 issue is presented.

Transcranial Doppler (TCD) With Transfusions Changing to Hydroxyurea (TWiTCH) trial is a randomized, open-label comparison of hydroxycarbamide (also termed hydroxyurea) versus continued chronic transfusion therapy for primary stroke prevention in patients with sickle cell anaemia (SCA) and abnormal TCD. Severity and location of iron overload is an important secondary outcome measure. We report the baseline findings of abdominal organ iron burden in 121 participants. At enrollment, patients were young (9·8 ± 2·9 years), predominantly female (60:40), and previously treated with transfusions (4·1 ± 2·4 years) and iron chelation (3·1 ± 2·1 years). Liver iron concentration (LIC; 9·0 ± 6·6 mg/g dry weight) and serum ferritin were moderately elevated (2696 ± 1678 μg/l), but transferrin was incompletely saturated (47·2 ± 23·6%). Spleen R2* was 509 ± 399 Hz (splenic iron ~13·9 mg/g) and correlated with LIC (r² = 0·14, P = 0·0008). Pancreas R2* was increased in 38·3% of patients but not to levels associated with endocrine toxicity. Kidney R2* was increased in 80·7% of patients; renal iron correlated with markers of intravascular haemolysis and was elevated in patients with increased urine albumin-creatinine ratios. Extra-hepatic iron deposition is common among children with SCA who receive chronic transfusions, and could potentiate oxidative stress caused by reperfusion injury and decellularized haemoglobin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thiazide-type diuretics have been recommended for initial treatment of hypertension in most patients, but should this recommendation differ for patients with and without coronary heart disease (CHD)? The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) was a randomized, double-blind hypertension treatment trial in 42,418 participants with high risk of combined cardiovascular disease (CVD) (25% with preexisting CHD). This post hoc analysis compares long-term major clinical outcomes in those assigned amlodipine (n = 9048) or lisinopril (n = 9,054) with those assigned chlorthalidone (n = 15,255), stratified by CHD status. After 4 to 8 years, randomized treatment was discontinued. Total follow-up (active treatment + passive surveillance using national databases for deaths and hospitalizations) was 8 to 13 years. For most CVD outcomes, end-stage renal disease, and total mortality, there were no differences across randomized treatment arms regardless of baseline CHD status. In-trial rates of CVD were significantly higher for lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone, and rates of heart failure were significantly higher for amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone in those with and without CHD (overall hazard ratios [HRs] 1.10, p <0.001, and 1.38, p <0.001, respectively). During extended follow-up, significant outcomes according to CHD status interactions (p = 0.012) were noted in amlodipine versus chlorthalidone comparison for CVD and CHD mortality (HR 0.88, p = 0.04, and 0.84, p = 0.04, respectively) in those with CHD at baseline (HR 1.06, p = 0.15, and 1.08, p = 0.17) and in those without. The results of the overall increased stroke mortality in lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone (HR 1.2; p = 0.03) and hospitalized heart failure in amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone (HR 1.12; p = 0.01) during extended follow-up did not differ by baseline CHD status. In conclusion, these results provide no reason to alter our previous recommendation to include a properly dosed diuretic (such as chlorthalidone 12.5 to 25 mg/day) in the initial antihypertensive regimen for most hypertensive patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A rapid decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate over 2 years in a large hypertensive cohort was associated with similar risks for overall cardiovascular disease in people with or without diabetes mellitus, but with higher all-cause mortality, heart failure, and end stage renal disease risk in people with diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most studies of an association of visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure with increased risk of future adverse cardiovascular events are of short duration and rarely include a placebo group. Using data from the double-blind, placebo-controlled Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program, the authors examined mortality from cardiovascular causes up to 17 years of follow-up using the National Death Index. Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability was associated with cardiovascular death after adjustment for sex, age, serum creatinine, diabetes, body mass index, smoking status, left ventricular failure, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The relationship was significantly stronger in the active treatment group compared with the placebo group. Although this could be the result of an effect of the medications used unrelated to visit-to-visit variability, the data are compatible with the hypothesis that inconsistent adherence leading to missing active medication doses may be an additional explanation for the relationship of visit-to-visit variability with cardiovascular death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article highlights a study which investigated the link between chlorthalidone therapy and the life expectancy of patients treated for systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP) trial was performed between 1985 and 1990. Chlorthalidone is an antihypertensive drug. At the 22-year follow-up, the long-term survival of patients was assessed. The findings of the study revealed that chlorthalidone stepped-care therapy of patients in the SHEP trial for 4.5 years was associated with longer life expectancy at follow-up.

The article presents a study on the impact of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial/Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (ALLHAT/JNC7) Dissemination Project on thiazide-type diuretic use. The study used IMS Health databases to compare prescribing practices of physicians before the project started in 2004 and after its completion in 2007. The study found that the project was associated with a small effect on the use of thiazide-type diuretic.

The article discusses a study which attempted to establish by a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data whether any relation exists between statin use and development of diabetes. The authors searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1994 to 2009 and excluded trials of patients with organ transplants. The study has emphasized trials with more than 1,000 patients. It was found that there was a link between statin therapy and a slightly increased risk of development of diabetes.

The article focuses on the reevaluation of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). It states that the reassessment of ALLHAT is based on subsequent analyses, meta-analyses, and other trials regarding heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease (CVD). It notes that ALLHAT is a clinical trial designed to test whether major coronary hear disease incidence is reduced by an angiosten converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, or an α-blocker. Moreover, discussion on the results of the reevaluation ALLHAT are presented including the implications of ALLHAT in some heart related diseases. ALLHAT reassessment shows that neither α-blocker nor ACE inhibitor surpasses the thiazide-type diuretic.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for hypertension.Background: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) found that first-line treatment with lisinopril or amlodipine was not significantly superior to chlorthalidone in terms of the primary endpoint, so differences in costs may be critical for optimizing decision-making.Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using bootstrap resampling to evaluate uncertainty.Results: Over a patient's lifetime, chlorthalidone was always least expensive (mean $4,802 less than amlodipine, $3,700 less than lisinopril). Amlodipine provided more life-years (LYs) than chlorthalidone in 84% of bootstrap samples (mean 37 days) at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $48,400 per LY gained. Lisinopril provided fewer LYs than chlorthalidone in 55% of bootstrap samples (mean 7-day loss) despite a higher cost. At a threshold of $50,000 per LY gained, amlodipine was preferred in 50%, chlorthalidone in 40%, and lisinopril in 10% of bootstrap samples, but these findings were highly sensitive to the cost of amlodipine and the cost-effectiveness threshold chosen. Incorporating quality of life did not appreciably alter the results. Overall, no reasonable combination of assumptions led to 1 treatment being preferred in over 90% of bootstrap samples.Conclusions: Initial treatment with chlorthalidone is less expensive than lisinopril or amlodipine, but amlodipine provided a nonsignificantly greater survival benefit and may be a cost-effective alternative. A randomized trial with power to exclude "clinically important" differences in survival will often have inadequate power to determine the most cost-effective treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the results of a study comparing the effect of three different hypertensive drug therapies on fasting glucose (FG) levels, and to determines the risks of cardiovascular and renal disease in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). The FG levels for all groups increased. The odds of developing DM in the group using lisinopril versus chlorthalidone at 2 years was lower.

Diuretic-based antihypertensive therapy is associated with the development of diabetes but with improved clinical outcomes. It has been proposed that the duration of clinical trials has been too short to detect the adverse effects of diabetes. We assessed the long-term mortality rate of subjects in the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (n = 4,732) who were randomized to stepped-care therapy with 12.5 to 25.0 mg/day of chlorthalidone or matching placebo. If blood pressure remained above the goal, atenolol or matching placebo was added. At a mean follow-up of 14.3 years, cardiovascular (CV) mortality rate was significantly lower in the chlorthalidone group (19%) than in the placebo group (22%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.854, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.751 to 0.972). Diabetes at baseline (n = 799) was associated with increased CV mortality rate (adjusted HR 1.659, 95% CI 1.413 to 1.949) and total mortality rate (adjusted HR 1.510, 95% CI 1.347 to 1.693). Diabetes that developed during the trial among subjects on placebo (n = 169) was also associated with increased CV adverse outcome (adjusted HR 1.562, 95% CI 1.117 to 2.184) and total mortality rate (adjusted HR 1.348, 95% CI 1.051 to 1.727). However, diabetes that developed among subjects during diuretic therapy (n = 258) did not have significant associations with CV mortality rate (adjusted HR 1.043, 95% CI 0.745 to 1.459) or total mortality rate (adjusted HR 1.151, 95% CI 0.925 to 1.433). Diuretic treatment in subjects who had diabetes was strongly associated with lower long-term CV mortality rate (adjusted HR 0.688, 95% CI 0.526 to 0.848) and total mortality rate (adjusted HR 0.805, 95% CI 0.680 to 0.952). Thus, chlorthalidone-based treatment improved long-term outcomes, especially among subjects who had diabetes. Subjects who had diabetes associated with chlorthalidone had no significant increase in CV events and had a better prognosis than did those who had preexisting diabetes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Although hypertension guidelines define treatment-resistant hypertension as blood pressure uncontrolled by ≥3 antihypertensive medications, including a diuretic, it is unknown whether patient prognosis differs when a diuretic is included.Methods: Participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) were randomly assigned to first-step therapy with chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril. At a Year 2 follow-up visit, those with average blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg systolic or ≥90 mm Hg diastolic on ≥3 antihypertensive medications, or blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg on ≥4 antihypertensive medications were identified as having apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. The prevalence of treatment-resistant hypertension and its association with ALLHAT primary (combined fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction) and secondary (all-cause mortality, stroke, heart failure, combined coronary heart disease, and combined cardiovascular disease) outcomes were identified for each treatment group.Results: Of participants assigned to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril, 9.6%, 11.4%, and 19.7%, respectively, had treatment-resistant hypertension. During mean follow-up of 2.9 years, primary outcome incidence was similar for those assigned to chlorthalidone compared with amlodipine or lisinopril (amlodipine- vs chlorthalidone-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-1.39; P = .53; lisinopril- vs chlorthalidone-adjusted HR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.70-1.60; P = .78). Secondary outcome risks were similar for most comparisons except coronary revascularization, which was higher with amlodipine than with chlorthalidone (HR 1.86; 95% CI, 1.11-3.11; P = .02). An as-treated analysis based on diuretic use produced similar results.Conclusions: In this study, which titrated medications to a goal, participants assigned to chlorthalidone were less likely to develop treatment-resistant hypertension. However, prognoses in those with treatment-resistant hypertension were similar across treatment groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by Joshua I. Barzilay and colleagues to a letter to the editor about their article "Fasting glucose levels and incident diabetes mellitus in older nondiabetic adults randomized to receive 3 different classes of antihypertensive treatment: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial" in a 2006 issue is presented.