Search

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.

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.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

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., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

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., (© 2014 by the American Diabetes Association.)

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., (Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

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.

Background: There is no evidence from randomized trials to support a strategy of lowering systolic blood pressure below 135 to 140 mm Hg in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We investigated whether therapy targeting normal systolic pressure (i.e., <120 mm Hg) reduces major cardiovascular events in participants with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events., Methods: A total of 4733 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to intensive therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, or standard therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 140 mm Hg. The primary composite outcome was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The mean follow-up was 4.7 years., Results: After 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 119.3 mm Hg in the intensive-therapy group and 133.5 mm Hg in the standard-therapy group. The annual rate of the primary outcome was 1.87% in the intensive-therapy group and 2.09% in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio with intensive therapy, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.06; P=0.20). The annual rates of death from any cause were 1.28% and 1.19% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.35; P=0.55). The annual rates of stroke, a prespecified secondary outcome, were 0.32% and 0.53% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.89; P=0.01). Serious adverse events attributed to antihypertensive treatment occurred in 77 of the 2362 participants in the intensive-therapy group (3.3%) and 30 of the 2371 participants in the standard-therapy group (1.3%) (P<0.001)., Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.), (2010 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Background: Previous studies of dose-response effects of usual sodium and potassium intake on subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD) have largely relied on suboptimal measures of intake., Methods: Two trials of sodium reduction and other interventions collected 24-hour urinary excretions intermittently during 18 months from September 17, 1987, to January 12, 1990 (Trials of Hypertension Prevention [TOHP] I), and during 36 months from December 18, 1990, to April 7, 1995 (TOHP II), among adults with prehypertension aged 30 to 54 years. Among adults not assigned to an active sodium reduction intervention, we assessed the relationship of a mean of 3 to 7 twenty-four-hour urinary excretions of sodium and potassium and their ratio with subsequent CVD (stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, or CVD mortality) through 10 to 15 years of posttrial follow-up., Results: Among 2974 participants, follow-up information was obtained on 2275 participants (76.5%), with 193 CVD events. After adjustment for baseline variables and lifestyle changes, there was a nonsignificant trend in CVD risk across sex-specific quartiles of urinary sodium excretion (rate ratio [RR] from lowest to highest, 1.00, 0.99, 1.16, and 1.20; P = .38 for trend) and potassium excretion (RR, 1.00, 0.94, 0.91, and 0.64; P = .08 for trend) but a significant trend across quartiles of the sodium to potassium excretion ratio (RR, 1.00, 0.84, 1.18, and 1.50; P = .04 for trend). In models containing both measures simultaneously, linear effects were as follows: RR, 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99 to 2.04 per 100 mmol/24 h of urinary sodium excretion (P = .05); and 0.67; 0.41 to 1.10 per 50 mmol/24 h of urinary potassium excretion (P = .12). A model containing the sodium to potassium excretion ratio (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05-1.46; P = .01) had the lowest Bayes information criterion (best fit)., Conclusion: A higher sodium to potassium excretion ratio is associated with increased risk of subsequent CVD, with an effect stronger than that of sodium or potassium alone.

Purpose of Review: Over the past decade post-hoc analyses of clinical trials and observational studies have tended to show that participants treated with thiazide diuretics are at greater risk for newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus than those treated with other medication classes. We review the results of several recent studies on the impact of thiazide-related hyperglycemia and diabetes mellitus on cardiovascular disease outcomes. We also examine the impact of the glucose-sparing effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on preventing cardiovascular disease., Recent Findings: No consistent or conclusive evidence has been found that hyperglycemia or diabetes mellitus in association with thiazide diuretic use is associated with increased cardiovascular disease outcomes. This benign outcome may be a consequence of the fact that only a segment of such diuretic-associated cases is induced by the usual etiologic mechanisms that are associated with classic 'diabetes mellitus'. Likewise, no evidence has been found that the glucose-lowering effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors is associated with decreased cardiovascular disease risk., Summary: We conclude that thiazide diuretics are safe to use, even in hypertensive individuals at risk for incident glucose disorders. The use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for protection against glucose disorders and subsequent cardiovascular disease remains to be determined.

Context: Few cardiovascular outcome data are available for blacks with hypertension treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or calcium channel blockers (CCBs)., Objective: To determine whether an ACE inhibitor or CCB is superior to a thiazide-type diuretic in reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence in racial subgroups., Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified subgroup analysis of ALLHAT, a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, clinical outcome trial conducted between February 1994 and March 2002 in 33,357 hypertensive US and Canadian patients aged 55 years or older (35% black) with at least 1 other cardiovascular risk factor., Interventions: Antihypertensive regimens initiated with a CCB (amlodipine) or an ACE inhibitor (lisinopril) vs a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone). Other medications were added to achieve goal blood pressures (BPs) less than 140/90 mm Hg., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was combined fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), analyzed by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, stroke, combined CVD (CHD death, nonfatal MI, stroke, angina, coronary revascularization, heart failure [HF], or peripheral vascular disease), and end-stage renal disease., Results: No significant difference was found between treatment groups for the primary CHD outcome in either racial subgroup. For amlodipine vs chlorthalidone only, HF was the only prespecified clinical outcome that differed significantly (overall: relative risk [RR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-1.51; blacks: RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.24-1.73; nonblacks: RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.17-1.49; P<.001 for each comparison) with no difference in treatment effects by race (P = .38 for interaction). For lisinopril vs chlorthalidone, results differed by race for systolic BP (greater decrease in blacks with chlorthalidone), stroke, and combined CVD outcomes (P<.001, P = .01, and P = .04, respectively, for interactions). In blacks and nonblacks, respectively, the RRs for stroke were 1.40 (95% CI, 1.17-1.68) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.85-1.17) and for combined CVD were 1.19 (95% CI, 1.09-1.30) and 1.06 (95% CI, 1.00-1.13). For HF, the RRs were 1.30 (95% CI, 1.10-1.54) and 1.13 (95% CI, 1.00-1.28), with no significant interaction by race. Time-dependent BP adjustment did not significantly alter differences in outcome for lisinopril vs chlorthalidone in blacks., Conclusions: In blacks and nonblack subgroups, rates were not lower in the amlodipine or lisinopril groups than in the chlorthalidone group for either the primary CHD or any other prespecified clinical outcome, and diuretic-based treatment resulted in the lowest risk of heart failure. While the improved outcomes with chlorthalidone were more pronounced for some outcomes in blacks than in nonblacks, thiazide-type diuretics remain the drugs of choice for initial therapy of hypertension in both black and nonblack hypertensive patients.

Context: Although evidence suggests that homocysteine is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease in adults, little information exists on homocysteine levels in children., Objectives: To describe the distribution of serum homocysteine concentrations among children and to examine the association between homocysteine levels and several characteristics, including serum levels of folic acid and vitamins B12 and B6., Design: Cross-sectional analysis., Setting: School-based cohort from California, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Texas., Participants: A total of 3524 US schoolchildren, aged 13 and 14 years, from the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (completed in 1994). Measurement was conducted in 1997., Main Outcome Measure: Nonfasting serum total homocysteine concentration., Results: The distribution of homocysteine values ranged from 0.1 to 25.7 micromol/L (median, 4.9 micromol/L). Geometric mean homocysteine concentration was significantly higher in boys (5.22 micromol/L) than girls (4.84 micromol/L); blacks (5.51 micromol/L) than whites (4.96 micromol/L) or Hispanics (4.93 micromol/L); nonusers of multivitamins (5.09 micromol/L) than users (4.82 micromol/L); and smokers (5.19 micromol/L) than nonsmokers (5.00 micromol/ L). Serum homocysteine was significantly inversely correlated with serum levels of folic acid (r= -0.36; P = .001), vitamin B12 (r = -0.21; P = .001), and vitamin B6 (r = -0.18; P = .001). Serum homocysteine was not significantly associated with serum lipid levels or family history of cardiovascular disease and was only weakly related to body mass index and systolic blood pressure. After multivariate adjustment, homocysteine remained independently associated with sex, race, serum folic acid and vitamin B12 levels, and systolic blood pressure., Conclusions: The distribution of homocysteine levels in children is substantially lower than that observed for adults; however, a small percentage of children are still potentially at elevated risk for future cardiovascular disease. Serum folic acid may be an important determinant of homocysteine levels in children.

A nested case-control study was undertaken involving men participating in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT). Serum samples from 712 men, stored for up to 20 years, were analyzed for homocyst(e)ine. Cases involved nonfatal myocardial infarctions (MIs), identified through the active phase of the study, which ended on February 28, 1982, and deaths due to coronary heart disease (CHD), monitored through 1990. The nonfatal MIs occurred within 7 years of sample collection, whereas the majority of CHD deaths occurred more than 11 years after sample collection. Mean homocyst(e)ine concentrations were in the expected range and did not differ significantly between case patients and control subjects: MI cases, 12.6 mumol/L; MI controls, 13.1 mumol/L; CHD death cases, 12.8 mumol/L; and CHD controls, 12.7 mumol/L. Odds ratios versus quartile 1 for CHD deaths and MIs combined were as follows: quartile 2, 1.03; quartile 3, 0.84; and quartile 4, 0.92. Thus, in this prospective study, no association of homocyst(e)ine concentration with heart disease was detected. Homocyst(e)ine levels were weakly associated with the acute-phase protein (C-reactive protein). These results are discussed with respect to the suggestion that homocyst(e)ine is an independent risk factor for heart disease.

Objective: To assess the effect of low-dose, diuretic-based antihypertensive treatment on major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event rates in older, non-insulin-treated diabetic patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), compared with nondiabetic patients., Design: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial: the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP)., Setting: Multiple clinical and support centers in the United States., Participants: A total of 4736 men and women aged 60 years and older at baseline with ISH (systolic blood pressure [BP], > or = 160 mm Hg; diastolic BP, <90 mm Hg) at baseline, 583 non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients and 4149 nondiabetic patients (4 additional patients not so classifiable were randomized but not included in these analyses). Diabetes mellitus defined as physician diagnosis, taking oral hypoglycemic drugs, fasting glucose level of 7.8 mmol/L or more (> or = 140 mg/dL), or any combination of these characteristics., Intervention: The active treatment group received a low dose of chlorthalidone (12.5-25.0 mg/d) with a step-up to atenolol (25.0-50.0 mg/d) or reserpine (0.05-0.10 mg/d) if needed. The placebo group received placebo and any active antihypertensive drugs prescribed by patient's private physician for persistently high BP., Main Outcome Measures: The 5-year rates of major CVD events, nonfatal plus fatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) and fatal coronary heart disease (CHD), major CHD events, and all-cause mortality., Results: The SHEP antihypertensive drug regimen lowered BP of both diabetic and nondiabetic patients, with few adverse effects. For both diabetic and nondiabetic patients, all outcome rates were lower for participants randomized to the active treatment group than for those randomized to the placebo group. Thus, 5-year major CVD rate was lower by 34% for active treatment compared with placebo, both for diabetic patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 6%-54%) and nondiabetic patients (95% CI, 21%-45%). Absolute risk reduction with active treatment compared with placebo was twice as great for diabetic vs nondiabetic patients (101/1000 vs 51/1000 randomized participants at the 5-year follow-up), reflecting the higher risk of diabetic patients., Conclusion: Low-dose diuretic-based (chlorthalidone) treatment is effective in preventing major CVD events, cerebral and cardiac, in both non-insulin-treated diabetic and nondiabetic older patients with ISH.

Evaluating a clinical trial can be problematic if the studied treatments affect patients in many ways. A possible method for evaluating treatments is to have raters rank all the patients' trial experiences and then test whether the distribution of ranks differ between treatments. Before one can advocate such a procedure, however, one would like to be assured that raters agree fairly well with one another. As a first step in examining whether raters tend to agree, we conducted a small study with 20 raters evaluating 43 trial experiences from an imaginary cardiovascular clinical trial. Raters showed a high degree of consensus. Moreover, the average ranks agreed fairly well with two quantitative ranking rules. On the other hand, the average ranks did not agree very well with weightings usually selected in cardiovascular trials. These results suggest ranking may be a feasible approach to analysing certain clinical trials with multiple outcomes.

Background: The degree of maintenance of risk factor changes observed in post-trial follow-up of participants in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT) provides insights into long-term determinants of preventive behaviors, as well as post-trial mortality differentials., Methods: Nine hundred eighty-nine former MRFIT participants at four clinical centers were invited to be reexamined 2-3.5 years after the end of this 6- to 8-year trial. Seventy percent came to the clinics for measurements of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, plasma lipids and lipoproteins, serum thiocyanate, and dietary food frequency. With the addition of phone interviews, 82% provided self-report data on cigarette smoking and use of antihypertensive drugs., Results: Comparison of Special Intervention (SI) and Usual Care (UC) groups showed that differences persisted for total (6.5 mg/dl, P = 0.02) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (5.4 mg/dl, P = 0.04), and for diastolic blood pressure (1.6 mm Hg, P = 0.02). Differences were not significant for systolic blood pressure (1.8 mm Hg, P = 0.12), cigarette smoking, and serum thiocyanate. The plasma cholesterol difference represented 70% of the value at the end of intervention, and food frequency profiles were consistent with maintenance of an SI - UC difference. Loss of the SI - UC difference in smoking was attributable to both UC cessation and SI recidivism. The blood pressure difference was not attributable to different proportions of SI and UC men on medications, but possibly to differences in diuretic doses, use of multiple drugs, and adherence. There was a persisting contrast in use of specific diuretics, with more frequent use of chlorthalidone and less of hydrochlorothiazide in the SI group., Conclusion: These findings suggest that cholesterol-lowering dietary changes are self-sustaining, while smoking cessation is less so, and may require continued intervention. Finally, the SI - UC differences in use of specific diuretics remains one hypothesis for explaining a portion of post-trial mortality trends.