Search

We examined the association of orthostatic hypertension with all-cause mortality in the active treatment and placebo randomized groups of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). SHEP was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the effect of chlorthalidone-based antihypertensive treatment on the rate of occurrence of stroke among older persons with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Men and women aged 60 years and above with ISH defined by a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 160 mm Hg or higher and diastolic blood pressure lower than 90 mm Hg were randomized to chlorthalidone-based stepped care therapy or matching placebo. Among 4736 SHEP participants, 4073 had a normal orthostatic response, 203 had orthostatic hypertension, and 438 had orthostatic hypotension. Compared with normal response, orthostatic hypertension was associated with higher all-cause mortality at 4.5 and 17 years in analyses adjusted for age, gender, treatment, SBP, and pulse pressure (PP, HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.30-2.69, p = 0.0007; HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.17-1.68, p = 0.0003, respectively). These associations remained significant after additional adjustment for risk factors and comorbidities (HR 1.43, 95% CI 0.99-0.08, p = 0.0566 at 4.5 years, and HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.06-1.53, p = 0.0096 at 17 years). The increased risk of all-cause mortality associated with orthostatic hypertension was observed in both the active and placebo groups without significant interaction between randomization group and the effect on mortality. Orthostatic hypertension is associated with future mortality risk, is easily detected, and can be used in refining cardiovascular risk assessment.

Background: Elevations of fasting glucose (FG) levels are frequently encountered in people treated with thiazide diuretics. The risk is lower in people treated with ACE inhibitors (ACEi). To determine if genetic factors play a role in FG elevation, we examined the interaction of a diabetes gene risk score (GRS) with the use of 3 different antihypertensive medications., Methods: We examined 376 nondiabetic hypertensive individuals with baseline FG <100 mg/dl who were genotyped for 24 genes associated with risk of elevated glucose levels. All participants had ≥1 follow-up FG level over 6 years of follow-up. Participants were randomized to treatment with a thiazide-like diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (CCB; amlodipine), or an ACEi (lisinopril). Outcomes were an FG increase of ≥13 or ≥27 mg/dl, the upper 75% and 90% FG increase in the parent cohort from which the present cohort was obtained. Odds ratios were adjusted for factors that increase FG levels., Results: For every 1 allele increase in GRS, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99, 1.14; P = 0.06) and 1.09 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.20; P = 0.08). When results were examined by randomized medications, participants randomized to amlodipine had statistically significant odds for either outcome (OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.48; P = 0.01 and OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.62; P = 0.01). No such risk increase was found in participants randomized to the other 2 medications., Conclusions: A diabetes GRS predicts FG elevation in people treated with a CCB, but not with an ACEi or diuretic. These findings require confirmation., Clinical Trials Registration: Trial number NCT00000542., (© American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2018. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Although atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines indicate that pharmacological blockade of the renin-angiotensin system may be considered for primary AF prevention in hypertensive patients, previous studies have yielded conflicting results. We sought to determine whether randomization to lisinopril reduces incident AF or atrial flutter (AFL) compared with chlorthalidone in a large clinical trial cohort with extended post-trial surveillance., Methods and Results: We performed a secondary analysis of the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial), a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial that enrolled hypertensive individuals ≥55 years of age with at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. Participants were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine, lisinopril, or chlorthalidone. Individuals with elevated fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were also randomized to pravastatin versus usual care. The primary outcome was the development of either AF or AFL as diagnosed by serial study ECGs or by Medicare claims data. Among 14 837 participants without prevalent AF or AFL, 2514 developed AF/AFL during a mean 7.5±3.2 years of follow-up. Compared with chlorthalidone, randomization to either lisinopril (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.15; P =0.46) or amlodipine (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.03; P =0.16) was not associated with a significant reduction in incident AF/AFL., Conclusions: Compared with chlorthalidone, treatment with lisinopril is not associated with a meaningful reduction in incident AF or AFL among older adults with a history of hypertension., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000542., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Randomized trials of hypertension have seldom examined heterogeneity in response to treatments over time and the implications for cardiovascular outcomes. Understanding this heterogeneity, however, is a necessary step toward personalizing antihypertensive therapy. We applied trajectory-based modeling to data on 39 763 study participants of the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) to identify distinct patterns of systolic blood pressure (SBP) response to randomized medications during the first 6 months of the trial. Two trajectory patterns were identified: immediate responders (85.5%), on average, had a decreasing SBP, whereas nonimmediate responders (14.5%), on average, had an initially increasing SBP followed by a decrease. Compared with those randomized to chlorthalidone, participants randomized to amlodipine (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.31), lisinopril (odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.73-2.03), and doxazosin (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.52-1.78) had higher adjusted odds ratios associated with being a nonimmediate responder (versus immediate responder). After multivariable adjustment, nonimmediate responders had a higher hazard ratio of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.21-1.84), combined cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.31), and heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.78) during follow-up between 6 months and 2 years. The SBP response trajectories provided superior discrimination for predicting downstream adverse cardiovascular events than classification based on difference in SBP between the first 2 measurements, SBP at 6 months, and average SBP during the first 6 months. Our findings demonstrate heterogeneity in response to antihypertensive therapies and show that chlorthalidone is associated with more favorable initial response than the other medications., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Importance: On the basis of observational studies, the use of thiazide diuretics for the treatment of hypertension is associated with reduced fracture risk compared with nonuse. Data from randomized clinical trials are lacking., Objective: To examine whether the use of thiazide diuretics for the treatment of hypertension is associated with reduced fracture risk compared with nonuse., Design, Setting, and Participants: Using Veterans Affairs and Medicare claims data, this study examined hip and pelvic fracture hospitalizations in Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial participants randomized to first-step therapy with a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besylate), or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril). Recruitment was from February 1994 to January 1998; in-trial follow-up ended in March 2002. The mean follow-up was 4.9 years. Posttrial follow-up was conducted through the end of 2006, using passive surveillance via national databases. For this secondary analysis, which used an intention-to-treat approach, data were analyzed from February 1, 1994, through December 31, 2006., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hip and pelvic fracture hospitalizations., Results: A total of 22 180 participants (mean [SD] age, 70.4 [6.7] years; 43.0% female; and 49.9% white non-Hispanic, 31.2% African American, and 19.1% other ethnic groups) were followed for up to 8 years (mean [SD], 4.9 [1.5] years) during masked therapy. After trial completion, 16 622 participants for whom claims data were available were followed for up to 5 additional years (mean [SD] total follow-up, 7.8 [3.1] years). During the trial, 338 fractures occurred. Participants randomized to receive chlorthalidone vs amlodipine or lisinopril had a lower risk of fracture on adjusted analyses (hazards ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98; P = .04). Risk of fracture was significantly lower in participants randomized to receive chlorthalidone vs lisinopril (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98; P = .04) but not significantly different compared with those randomized to receive amlodipine (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63-1.08; P = .17). During the entire trial and posttrial period of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of fractures was nonsignificantly lower in participants randomized to receive chlorthalidone vs lisinopril or amlodipine (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.03; P = .10) and vs each medication separately. In sensitivity analyses, when 1 year after randomization was used as the baseline (to allow for the effects of medications on bone to take effect), similar results were obtained for in-trial and in-trial plus posttrial follow-up., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings from a large randomized clinical trial provide evidence of a beneficial effect of thiazide-type diuretic therapy in reducing hip and pelvic fracture risk compared with treatment with other antihypertensive medications., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000542.

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) was a randomized, double-blind, practice-based, active-control, comparative effectiveness trial in 33,357 high-risk hypertensive participants. ALLHAT compared cardiovascular disease outcomes in participants initially treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), or a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone). We report stroke outcomes in 1517 participants in-trial and 1596 additional participants during post-trial passive surveillance, for a total follow-up of 8-13 years. Stroke rates were higher with lisinopril (6-year rate/100 = 6.4) than with chlorthalidone (5.8) or amlodipine (5.5) in-trial but not including post-trial (10-year rates/100 = 13.2 [chlorthalidone], 13.1[amlodipine], and 13.7 [lisinopril]). In-trial differences were driven by race (race-by-lisinopril/chlorthalidone interaction P = .005, race-by-amlodipine/lisinopril interaction P = .012) and gender (gender-by-lisinopril/amlodipine interaction P = .041), separately. No treatment differences overall, or by race or gender, were detected over the 10-year period. No differences appeared among treatment groups in adjusted risk of all-cause mortality including post-trial for participants with nonfatal in-trial strokes. Among Blacks and women, lisinopril was less effective in preventing stroke in-trial than either chlorthalidone or amlodipine, even after adjusting for differences in systolic blood pressure. These differences abated by the end of the post-trial period., (Copyright © 2014 American Society of Hypertension. All rights reserved.)

Few randomized trials have compared visit-to-visit variability (VVV) of systolic blood pressure (SBP) across drug classes. The authors compared VVV of SBP among 24,004 participants randomized to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). VVV of SBP was calculated across 5 to 7 visits occurring 6 to 28 months following randomization. The standard deviation (SD) of SBP was 10.6 (SD=5.0), 10.5 (SD=4.9), and 12.2 (SD=5.8) for participants randomized to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, and lisinopril, respectively. After multivariable adjustment including mean SBP across visits and compared with participants randomized to chlorthalidone, participants randomized to amlodipine had a 0.36 (standard error [SE]: 0.07) lower SD of SBP and participants randomized to lisinopril had a 0.77 (SE=0.08) higher SD of SBP. Results were consistent using other VVV of SBP metrics. These data suggest chlorthalidone and amlodipine are associated with lower VVV of SBP than lisinopril., (©2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

We examined the effect of chlorthalidone-based stepped care on the competing risks of cardiovascular (CV) versus non-CV death in the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). Participants were randomly assigned to chlorthalidone-based stepped-care therapy (n = 2,365) or placebo (n = 2,371) for 4.5 years, and all participants were advised to take active therapy thereafter. At the 22-year follow-up, the gain in life expectancy free from CV death in the active treatment group was 145 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 23 to 260, p = 0.012). The gain in overall life expectancy was smaller (105 days, 95% CI -39 to 242, p = 0.073) because of a 40-day (95% CI -87 to 161) decrease in survival from non-CV death. Compared with an age- and gender-matched cohort, participants had markedly higher overall life expectancy (Wilcoxon p = 0.00001) and greater chance of reaching the ages of 80 (81.3% vs 57.6%), 85 (58.1% vs 37.4%), 90 (30.5% vs 22.0%), 95 (11.9% vs 8.8%), and 100 years (3.7% vs 2.8%). In conclusion, Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program participants had higher overall life expectancy than actuarial controls and those randomized to active therapy had longer life expectancy free from CV death but had a small increase in the competing risk of non-CV death., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: CKD is common among older patients. This article assesses long-term renal and cardiovascular outcomes in older high-risk hypertensive patients, stratified by baseline estimated GFR (eGFR), and long-term outcome efficacy of 5-year first-step treatment with amlodipine or lisinopril, each compared with chlorthalidone., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: This was a long-term post-trial follow-up of hypertensive participants (n=31,350), aged ≥55 years, randomized to receive chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril for 4-8 years at 593 centers. Participants were stratified by baseline eGFR (ml/min per 1.73 m(2)) as follows: normal/increased (≥90; n=8027), mild reduction (60-89; n=17,778), and moderate/severe reduction (<60; n=5545). Outcomes were cardiovascular mortality (primary outcome), total mortality, coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, stroke, heart failure, and ESRD., Results: After an average 8.8-year follow-up, total mortality was significantly higher in participants with moderate/severe eGFR reduction compared with those with normal and mildly reduced eGFR (P<0.001). In participants with an eGFR <60, there was no significant difference in cardiovascular mortality between chlorthalidone and amlodipine (P=0.64), or chlorthalidone and lisinopril (P=0.56). Likewise, no significant differences were observed for total mortality, coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, stroke, or ESRD., Conclusions: CKD is associated with significantly higher long-term risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in older hypertensive patients. By eGFR stratum, 5-year treatment with amlodipine or lisinopril was not superior to chlorthalidone in preventing cardiovascular events, mortality, or ESRD during 9-year follow-up. Because data on proteinuria were not available, these findings may not be extrapolated to proteinuric CKD.

Objective: To identify panels of genetic variants that predict treatment-related coronary heart disease (CHD) outcomes in hypertensive patients on one of four different classes of initial antihypertensive treatment. The goal was to identify subgroups of individuals on the basis of their genetic profile who benefit most from a particular treatment., Methods: Candidate genetic variants (n=78) were genotyped in 39 114 participants from Genetics of Hypertension Associated Treatment study, ancillary to Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial randomized hypertensive participants (≥55 years) to one of four treatments (amlodipine, chlorthalidone, doxazosin, lisinopril). The primary outcome was fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction (mean follow-up=4.9 years). A pharmacogenetic panel was derived within each of the four treatment groups. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves estimated the discrimination rate between those with and without a CHD event, on the basis of the addition of the genetic panel risk score., Results: For each treatment group, we identified a panel of genetic variants that collectively improved the prediction of CHD to a small but statistically significant extent. Chlorthalidone (A): NOS3 rs3918226; SELE rs5361; ICAM1 rs1799969; AGT rs5051; GNAS rs7121; ROC comparison, P=0.004; Amlodipine (B): MMP1 rs1799750; Factor5 (F5) rs6025; NPPA rs5065; PDE4D rs6450512; MMP9 rs2274756; ROC comparison, P=0.006; Lisinopril (C): AGT rs5051; PON1 rs705379; MMP12 rs652438; F12 rs1801020; GP1BA rs6065; PDE4D rs27653; ROC comparison, P=0.01; Doxazosin (D): F2 rs1799963; PAI1 rs1799768; MMP7 rs11568818; AGT rs5051; ACE rs4343; MMP2 rs243865; ROC comparison, P=0.007. Each panel was tested for a pharmacogenetic effect; panels A, B, and D showed such evidence (P=0.009, 0.006, and 0.001, respectively) and panel C did not (P=0.09)., Conclusion: Because each panel was associated with CHD in a specific treatment group but not the others, this research provides evidence that it may be possible to use gene panel scores as a tool to better assess antihypertensive treatment choices to reduce CHD risk in hypertensive individuals.

Context: In the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP) trial, conducted between 1985 and 1990, antihypertensive therapy with chlorthalidone-based stepped-care therapy resulted in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo but effects on mortality were not significant., Objective: To study the gain in life expectancy of participants randomized to active therapy at the 22-year follow-up., Design, Setting, and Participants: A National Death Index ascertainment of death in the long-term follow-up of a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (SHEP) of patients aged 60 years or older with isolated systolic hypertension. Recruitment was between March 1, 1985, and January 15, 1988. After the end of a 4.5-year randomized phase of the SHEP trial, all participants were advised to receive active therapy. The time interval between the beginning of recruitment and the ascertainment of death by National Death Index (December 31, 2006) was approximately 22 years (21 years 10 months)., Main Outcome Measures: Cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality., Results: At the 22-year follow-up, life expectancy gain, expressed as the area between active (n = 2365) and placebo (n = 2371) survival curves, was 105 days (95% CI, -39 to 242; P = .07) for all-cause mortality and 158 days (95% CI, 36-287; P = .009) for cardiovascular death. Each month of active treatment was therefore associated with approximately 1 day extension in life expectancy. The active treatment group had higher survival free from cardiovascular death vs the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.99; P = .03) but similar survival for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04; P = .42). There were 1416 deaths (59.9%) in the active treatment group and 1435 deaths (60.5%) in the placebo group (log-rank P = .38, Wilcoxon P = .24). Cardiovascular death was lower in the active treatment group (669 deaths [28.3%]) vs the placebo group (735 deaths [31.0%]; log-rank P = .03, Wilcoxon P = .02). Time to 70th percentile survival was 0.56 years (95% CI, -0.14 to 1.23) longer in the active treatment group vs the placebo group (11.53 vs 10.98 years; P = .03) for all-cause mortality and 1.41 years (95% CI, 0.34-2.61; 17.81 vs 16.39 years; P = .01) for survival free from cardiovascular death., Conclusion: In the SHEP trial, treatment of isolated systolic hypertension with chlorthalidone stepped-care therapy for 4.5 years was associated with longer life expectancy at 22 years of follow-up.

Background and Purpose: Epidemiologic studies have demonstrated that hypertension increases the risk of stroke, and clinical trials have shown that antihypertensive therapy reduces this risk. Incident stroke was significantly decreased by treatment in the Systolic Hypertension in Elderly Program (SHEP) Trial, but the reduction in fatal events was not statistically significant., Methods: Vital status was determined for 4736 SHEP participants by matching to the National Death Index. We assessed the impact of antihypertensive treatment, stroke, and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) during SHEP on long-term (mean, 14.3 years) mortality., Results: Treatment with a chlorthalidone-based antihypertensive regimen significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death (adjusted relative risk [RR]=0.86; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.98, P=0.026) in the SHEP cohort without a significant (P=0.39) interaction with stroke status. Patients who sustained a stroke during SHEP had significantly higher all-cause mortality at the 14.3-year mean follow-up: 65.6% compared with 40.6% among those free of stroke or TIA (adjusted RR=1.97; 95% CI, 1.67 to 2.33). They also were at higher risk for cardiovascular death (RR=2.00; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.53) and stroke death (RR=2.94; 95% CI, 1.87 to 4.64). TIA was not significantly associated with increased total mortality (RR=1.13; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.44), cardiovascular death (RR=1.30; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.81), or stroke death (RR=1.76; 95% CI, 0.95 to 3.26)., Conclusions: In SHEP, chlorthalidone-based treatment reduced the risk of cardiovascular death after 14 years of extended follow-up. Nearly two thirds of elderly persons with isolated systolic hypertension who experienced stroke died within 14 years.

Background: Elevated blood glucose levels are reported with thiazide-type diuretic treatment of hypertension. The significance of this finding is uncertain. Our objectives were to compare the effect of first-step antihypertensive drug therapy with thiazide-type diuretic, calcium-channel blocker, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor on fasting glucose (FG) levels and to determine cardiovascular and renal disease risks associated with elevated FG levels and incident diabetes mellitus (DM) in 3 treatment groups., Methods: We performed post hoc subgroup analyses from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) among nondiabetic participants who were randomized to receive treatment with chlorthalidone (n = 8419), amlodipine (n = 4958), or lisinopril (n = 5034) and observed for a mean of 4.9 years., Results: Mean FG levels increased during follow-up in all treatment groups. At year 2, those randomized to the chlorthalidone group had the greatest increase (+8.5 mg/dL [0.47 mmol/L] vs +5.5 mg/dL [0.31 mmol/L] for amlodipine and +3.5 mg/dL [0.19 mmol/L] for lisinopril). The odds ratios for developing DM with lisinopril (0.55 [95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.70]) or amlodipine (0.73 [95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.91]) vs chlorthalidone at 2 years were significantly lower than 1.0 (P<.01). There was no significant association of FG level change at 2 years with subsequent coronary heart disease, stroke, cardiovascular disease, total mortality, or end-stage renal disease. There was no significant association of incident DM at 2 years with clinical outcomes, except for coronary heart disease (risk ratio, 1.64; P = .006), but the risk ratio was lower and nonsignificant in the chlorthalidone group (risk ratio, 1.46; P = .14)., Conclusions: Fasting glucose levels increase in older adults with hypertension regardless of treatment type. For those taking chlorthalidone vs other medications, the risk of developing FG levels higher than 125 mg/dL (6.9 mmol/L) is modestly greater, but there is no conclusive or consistent evidence that this diuretic-associated increase in DM risk increases the risk of clinical events.

Angioedema is a rare, potentially life-threatening condition that has been associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors since their introduction in the 1980s. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), the largest antihypertensive study conducted to date, randomized 42,418 participants to a diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), or an alpha-blocker (doxazosin). Patients who developed angioedema were compared for baseline characteristics and changes in antihypertensive drug administration. Fifty-three participants developed angioedema during active follow-up: 55% were black, 60% men, and 70% were assigned to lisinopril (including 62% of black participants with angioedema), 15% to chlorthalidone, 9% to doxazosin, and 6% to amlodipine. Six percent occurred within a day of randomization and 23% within the first week. Over half did not have an increase in their assigned (blinded) antihypertensive drug before angioedema onset; 3 (6%) had a dose increase within a week before onset. One patient died following an angioedema episode. The occurrence of angioedema in the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor arm corresponds with previously reported angioedema-angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor associations.

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.

Background: Optimal first-step antihypertensive drug therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) or impaired fasting glucose levels (IFG) is uncertain. We wished to determine whether treatment with a calcium channel blocker or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor decreases clinical complications compared with treatment with a thiazide-type diuretic in DM, IFG, and normoglycemia (NG)., Methods: Active-controlled trial in 31 512 adults, 55 years or older, with hypertension and at least 1 other risk factor for coronary heart disease, stratified into DM (n = 13 101), IFG (n = 1399), and NG (n = 17 012) groups on the basis of national guidelines. Participants were randomly assigned to double-blind first-step treatment with chlorthalidone, 12.5 to 25 mg/d, amlodipine besylate, 2.5 to 10 mg/d, or lisinopril, 10 to 40 mg/d. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis of fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction (primary outcome), total mortality, and other clinical complications., Results: There was no significant difference in relative risk (RR) for the primary outcome in DM or NG participants assigned to amlodipine or lisinopril vs chlorthalidone or in IFG participants assigned to lisinopril vs chlorthalidone. A significantly higher RR (95% confidence interval) was noted for the primary outcome in IFG participants assigned to amlodipine vs chlorthalidone (1.73 [1.10-2.72]). Stroke was more common in NG participants assigned to lisinopril vs chlorthalidone (1.31 [1.10-1.57]). Heart failure was more common in DM and NG participants assigned to amlodipine (1.39 [1.22-1.59] and 1.30 [1.12-1.51], respectively) or lisinopril (1.15 [1.00-1.32] and 1.19 [1.02-1.39], respectively) vs chlorthalidone., Conclusion: Our results provide no evidence of superiority for treatment with calcium channel blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors compared with a thiazide-type diuretic during first-step antihypertensive therapy in DM, IFG, or NG.

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.

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.

Background: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial reported that treatment initiated with doxazosin compared with chlorthalidone doubled the risk for heart failure in high-risk hypertensive patients (relative risk, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.79 to 2.32]). Patients assigned to doxazosin therapy had a mean in-trial systolic/diastolic blood pressure 3/0 mm Hg higher than that in patients assigned to chlorthalidone. Sixty-eight percent (6167 of 9061) of the former patients and 59% (9081 of 15 256) of the latter patients were given additional medications to achieve a target blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg., Objective: To ascertain the influence of open-label antihypertensive drugs and subsequent blood pressure on relative risk for heart failure., Design: Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial., Setting: 623 sites in the United States and Canada., Patients: Hypertensive patients 55 years of age or older with at least one additional risk factor for cardiovascular disease., Intervention: Chlorthalidone (12.5 to 25 mg/d) or doxazosin (2 to 8 mg/d) for a planned follow-up of 4 to 8 years., Measurements: Data on blood pressure, medication, and incident heart failure (treated outside hospital, hospitalized, or fatal) from February 1994 through December 1999., Results: After the treatment groups were categorized as having no exposure to open-label medications (monotherapy) or exposure to open-label therapy, the relative risk for heart failure with doxazosin versus chlorthalidone was 3.10 (CI, 2.51 to 3.82) and 1.42 (CI, 1.20 to 1.69), respectively. After adjustment for follow-up systolic/diastolic blood pressure, the overall relative risk was 2.00 (CI, 1.72 to 2.32)., Conclusion: In high-risk patients with hypertension, the higher risk for heart failure while taking doxazosin compared with chlorthalidone is attenuated but not eliminated by adding other antihypertensive drugs. The small observed difference in systolic blood pressure does not explain this increased risk.

Background. Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) ended in 2002, but it is important to study its long-term outcomes during the posttrial period by incorporating posttrial antihypertensive medication uses in the analysis. Purposes. The primary aim is to explore the patterns of antihypertensive medication use during the posttrial period from Medicare Part-D data over the 11-year period from 2007 to 2017. The secondary aim is to examine the potential effects of these posttrial antihypertensive medications on the observed mortality and morbidity benefits. Methods. This is a posttrial passive follow-up study of ALLHAT participants in 567 US centers in 1994–1998 with the last date of active in-trial follow-up on March 31, 2002, by linking with their Medicare and National Death Index data through 2017 among 8,007 subjects receiving antihypertensive drugs (3,637 for chlorthalidone, 2,189 for amlodipine, and 2,181 for lisinopril). Outcomes included posttrial antihypertensive drug use, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. Results. Of 8007 subjects, 3,637 participants were initially randomized to diuretic (chlorthalidone). The majority (67.9%) of them still received diuretics in 2007, and 52.7%, 47.2%, and 44.0% received β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers (CCBs), respectively. Compared to participants who received diuretic-based antihypertensives, those who received CCB had a nonsignificantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (1.17, 0.99–1.37), whereas those who received ACE/ARB (angiotensin receptor blockers) had a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (1.26, 1.09–1.45). For the combined fatal or nonfatal hospitalized events, the risk of CVD was significantly higher in patients receiving CCB (1.30, 1.04–1.61) and ACE/ARB (1.49, 1.22–1.81) as compared to patients receiving diuretics. Conclusion. After the conclusion of the ALLHAT, almost all patients switched to combination antihypertensive therapies, independently by the original drug class, and the combination therapies (mostly based on diuretics) reduced the incidence of major cardiovascular outcomes and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypertension treatment has been implicated in falls, syncope, and orthostatic hypotension (OH), common events among older adults. Whether the choice of antihypertensive agent influences the risk of falls, syncope, and OH in older adults is unknown. ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) was a randomized clinical trial that compared the effects of hypertension first-step therapy on fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction (1994-2002). In a subpopulation of ALLHAT participants, age 65 years and older, we determined the relative risk of falls, syncope, OH, or a composite based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and Veterans Affairs claims, using Cox regression. We also determined the adjusted association of self-reported atenolol use (ascertained at the 1-month visit for indications other than hypertension) on outcomes in Cox models adjusted for age, sex, and race. Among 23 964 participants (mean age 69.8±6.8 years, 45% women, 31% non-Hispanic black) followed for a mean of 4.9 years, we identified 267 falls, 755 syncopes, 249 OH, and 1157 composite claims. There were no significant differences in the cumulative incidences of events across randomized drug assignments. However, amlodipine increased risk of falls during the first year of follow-up compared with chlorthalidone (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 2.24 [1.06-4.74]; P=0.03) or lisinopril (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 2.61 [1.03-6.72]; P=0.04). Atenolol use (N=928) was not associated with any of the 3 individual or composite claims. In older adults, the choice of antihypertensive agent had no effect on risk of fall, syncope, or OH long-term. However, amlodipine increased risk of falls within 1 year of initiation. These short-term findings require confirmation. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000542. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient characteristics are associated with adherence, which has implications for planning clinical research or designing payment systems that reward superior outcomes. It is unclear to what extent clinician efforts to improve adherence can attenuate these associations.Methods: To identify factors predicting visit and medication adherence in settings designed to optimize adherence, we did a retrospective analysis of participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). ALLHAT recruited participants at 632 sites in North America, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands for random assignment to antihypertensive treatment with amlodipine, chlorthalidone, or lisinopril. Site investigators reported clinic characteristics at the time they applied to participate in the study and research coordinators used standardized methods to measure patient characteristics. We defined adequate visit adherence as attending at least 80 % of scheduled visits; adequate medication adherence was defined as taking 80 % or more of the randomly assigned medication at all study visits.Results: The 31,250 ALLHAT participants eligible for the visit adherence analysis attended 78.5 % of scheduled study visits; 68.9 % attended more than 80 % of scheduled visits. Clinic setting was predictive of both forms of adherence; adherence was worst at private clinics; clinics that enrolled more study participants had superior adherence. Adjusting for clinic characteristics and clinical factors, women, younger participants, Blacks and smokers were less likely to have adequate visit adherence. Among the 28,967 participants eligible for the medication adherence analysis, 21,261 (73.4 %) reported adequate medication adherence. In adjusted analyses, younger and less educated participants, Blacks, and smokers were less likely to report adequate adherence.Conclusions: Participant demographics were associated with adherence despite strenuous efforts to optimize adherence. Our results could inform decisions by researchers planning trials and policymakers designing payment systems.Trial Registration: NCT00000542 . Registered 27 October 1999. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: MMP-9 and -12 function in tissue remodeling and may play roles in cardiovascular disease (CVD). We assessed associations of four MMP polymorphisms and three antihypertensive drugs with cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: Hypertensives (n = 42,418) from a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial were randomized to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, lisinopril, or doxazosin treatment (mean follow up, 4.9 years). The primary outcome was coronary heart disease (CHD). Secondary outcomes included combined CHD, all CVD outcomes combined, stroke, heart failure (HF), and mortality. Genotype-treatment interactions were tested. Results: There were 38,698 participants genotyped for at least one of the polymorphisms included here. For MMP9 R668Q (rs2274756), lower hazard ratios (HRs) were found for AA subjects for most outcomes when treated with chlorthalidone versus amlodipine (eg., CCHD: GG = 1.00, GA = 1.01, AA = 0.64; P = 0.038). For MMP9 R279Q (rs17576), modest pharmacogenetic findings were observed for combined CHD and the composite CVD outcome. For MMP12 N122S (rs652438), lower HRs were observed for CHD in subjects carrying at least one G allele and being treated with chlorthalidone versus lisinopril (CHD: AA = 1.07, AG = 0.80, GG = 0.49; P = 0.005). In the lisinopril-amlodipine comparison, higher HRs were observed for participants having at least one G allele at the MMP12 N122S locus (CHD: AA = 0.94, AG = 1.19, GG = 1.93; P = 0.041). For MMP12 282A.G (rs2276109), no pharmacogenetic effect was found for the primary outcome, although lower HRs were observed for AA homozygotes in the chlorthalidone-amlodipine comparison for HF (P = 0.015). Conclusions: We observed interactions between antihypertensive drugs and MMP9 and MMP12 for CHD and composite CVD. The data suggest that these genes may provide useful clinical information with respect to treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Background This study was performed to determine whether, in high-risk hypertensive patients with a reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR), treatment with a calcium channel blocker or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lowers the incidence of renal disease outcomes compared with treatment with a diuretic. Methods We conducted post hoc analyses of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Hypertensive participants 55 years or older with at least 1 other coronary heart disease risk factor were randomized to receive chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril for a mean of 4.9 years. Renal outcomes were incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and/or a decrement in GFR of 50% or more from baseline. Baseline GFR, estimated by the simplified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation, was stratified into normal or increased (≥90 mL /min per 1.73m2, n = 8126), mild reduction (60-89 mL /min per 1.73 m2, n = 18 109), or moderate-severe reduction (<60 mL /min per 1.73 m2, n = 5662) in GFR. Each stratum was analyzed for effects of the treatments on outcomes. Results In 448 participants, ESRD developed. Compared with patients taking chlorthalidone, no significant differences occurred in the incidence of ESRD in patients taking amlodipine in the mild (relative risk [RR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-2.23) or moderate-severe (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68-1.24) reduction in GFR groups. Compared with patients taking chlorthalidone, no significant differences occurred in the incidence of ESRD in patients taking lisinopril in the mild (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.87-2.06) or moderate-severe (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.73-1.31) reduction in GFR groups. In patients with mild and moderate-severe reduction in GFR, the incidence of ESRD or 50% or greater decrement in GFR was not significantly different in patients treated with chlorthalidone compared with those treated with amlodipine (odds ratios, 0.96 [P = .74] and 0.85 [P = .23], respectively) and lisinopril (odds ratios, 1.13 [P = .31] and 1.00 [P = .98], respectively). No difference in treatment effects occurred for either end point for patients taking amlodipine or lisinopril compared with those taking chlorthalidone across the 3 GFR subgroups, either for the total group or for participants with diabetes at baseline. At 4 years of follow-up, estimated GFR was 3 to 6 mL /min per 1.73 m2 higher in patients assigned to receive amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone, depending on baseline GFR stratum. Conclusions In hypertensive patients with reduced GFR, neither amlodipine nor lisinopril was superior to chlorthalidone in reducing the rate of development of ESRD or a 50% or greater decrement in GFR. Participants assigned to receive amlodipine had a higher GFR than those assigned to receive chlorthalidone, but rates of development of ESRD were not different between the groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate treatment of mild hypertension using combinations of diet and low-dose pharmacologic therapies.Design: Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.Setting: Three university-based tertiary care centers.Patients: Patients (697) 21 to 65 years of age with diastolic blood pressure between 90 and 100 mm Hg as well as weight between 110% and 160% of ideal weight.Intervention: Patients were stratified by clinical center and race and were randomly assigned to one of three diets (usual, low-sodium and high-potassium, weight loss) and one of three agents (placebo, chlorthalidone, and atenolol).Measurements: Changes in measures of sexual problems, distress, and well-being after 6 months of therapy were analyzed.Main Results: Low-dose chlorthalidone and atenolol produced few side effects, except in men. Erection-related problems worsened in 28% (95% CI, 15% to 41%) of men receiving chlorthalidone and usual diet compared with 3% (CI, 0% to 9%) of those receiving placebo and usual diet (P = 0.009) and 11% (CI, 2% to 20%) of those receiving atenolol and usual diet (P greater than 0.05). The weight loss diet ameliorated this effect. The low-sodium diet with placebo was associated with greater fatigue (34%; CI, 23% to 45%) than was either usual diet (18%; CI, 10% to 27%; P = 0.04) or weight reduction (15%; CI, 7% to 23%; P = 0.009). The low-sodium diet with chlorthalidone increased problems with sleep (32%; CI, 22% to 42%) compared with chlorthalidone and usual diet (16%; CI, 8% to 24%; P = 0.04). The weight loss diet benefited quality of life most, reducing total physical complaints (P less than 0.001) and increasing satisfaction with health (P less than 0.001). Total physical complaints decreased in 57% to 76% of patients depending on drug and diet group, and were markedly decreased by weight loss.Conclusion: In general, low-dose antihypertensive drug therapy (with chlorthalidone or atenolol) improves rather than impairs the quality of life; however, chlorthalidone with usual diet increases sexual problems in men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) predicts cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients. We analyzed baseline/follow-up electrocardiographies in 26,376 Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial participants randomized to amlodipine (A), lisinopril (L), or chlorthalidone (C). Prevalent/incident LVH was examined using continuous and categorical classifications of Cornell voltage. At 2 and 4 years, prevalence of LVH in the C group (5.57%; 6.14%) was not statistically different from A group (2 years: 5.47%; P = .806, 4 years: 6.54%; P = .857) or L group (2 years: 5.64%; P = .857, 4 years: 6.50%; P = .430). Incident LVH followed similarly, with no difference at 2 years for C (2.99%) compared to A (2.57%; P = .173) or L (3.16%; P = .605) and at 4 years (C = 3.52%, A = 3.29%, L = 3.71%; P = .521 C vs. A, P = .618 C vs. L). Mean Cornell voltage decreased comparably across treatment groups (Δ baseline, 2 years = +3 to −27 μV, analysis of variance P = .8612; 4 years = +10 to −17 μV, analysis of variance P = .9692). We conclude that risk reductions associated with C treatment in secondary end points of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial cannot be attributed to differential improvements in electrocardiography LVH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) determined that treatment with amlodipine, lisinopril, or doxazosin was not superior to thiazide-like diuretic (chlorthalidone) in preventing coronary heart disease (CHD) or other cardiovascular events. This subanalysis examines baseline prevalence and in-trial incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL) and their influence on clinical outcomes. Background: Limited information is available on whether atrial fibrillation incidence is affected differentially by different classes of antihypertensive medications or treatment with statins. Methods: AF/AFL was identified from baseline and follow-up electrocardiograms performed biannually. Analyses were performed to identify characteristics associated with baseline AF/AFL and its subsequent incidence. Results: AF/AFL was present at baseline in 423 participants (1.1%), more frequent in men (odds ratio: 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37 to 2.17) and nonblacks (odds ratio: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.58 to 2.75). Its prevalence increased with age (p < 0.001) and was associated with CHD, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol <35 mg/dl. New-onset AF/AFL was associated with the same baseline risk factors plus electrocardiogram left ventricular hypertrophy. It occurred in 641 participants (2.0%) and, excluding doxazosin, did not differ by antihypertensive treatment group or, in a subset of participants, by pravastatin versus usual care. Baseline AF/AFL was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.82; 95% CI: 2.36 to 3.37; p < 0.001), stroke (HR: 3.63; 95% CI: 2.72 to 4.86; p < 0.001), heart failure (HR: 3.17; 95% CI: 2.38 to 4.25; p < 0.001), and fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.22 to 2.21; p < 0.01). There was a nearly 2.5-fold increase in mortality risk when AF/AFL was present at baseline or developed during the trial (HR: 2.42; 95% CI: 2.11 to 2.77; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this high-risk hypertensive population, pre-existing and new-onset AF/AFL were associated with increased mortality. Excluding doxazosin, treatment assignment to either antihypertensive drugs or pravastatin versus usual care did not affect AF/AFL incidence. (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial [ALLHAT]; NCT00000542) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]