Search

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) is a practice-based, randomized, multicenter clinical trial in 42,419 high-risk hypertensive patients aged 55 years and older; 10,356 of these patients are also in a lipid-lowering trial component. The purpose of the antihypertensive component is to determine whether the occurrence of fatal coronary heart disease and/or nonfatal myocardial infarction differs between patients randomized to diuretic (chlorthalidone) and those randomized to either calcium antagonist (amlodipine), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), or alpha-adrenergic blocker (doxazosin) therapy. (The doxazosin arm has been discontinued.) The purpose of the lipid-lowering component is to determine whether lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with a 3-hydroxymethyl-glutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor (pravastatin) in moderately hypercholesterolemic patients will reduce all-cause mortality compared to a control group receiving "usual care." ALLHAT recruited patients from a variety of practice settings from February 1994 through January 1998. Sites were paid for randomizations and are paid for completed follow-up visits and documented study events. Communication and monitoring were facilitated by nine regional coordinator teams. It was recognized from the outset that patient recruitment would be a very large task because of the number of participants (> 40,000) needed, the ambitious nature of the goal for recruitment of African-Americans (> 55%), and the knowledge that many investigators had limited experience recruiting participants for clinical trials. Multiple adjustments in the initial ALLHAT overall recruitment plan facilitated achievement of sample size goals for both components of the trial. The experience obtained from this large trial should be valuable for the planning and implementation of successful recruitment in future trials.

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) is a randomized clinical outcome trial of antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy in a diverse population (including substantial numbers of women and minorities) of 42,419 high-risk hypertensives aged > or = 55 years with a planned mean follow-up of 6 years. In this paper, we describe our experience in the identification, recruitment, and selection of clinical centers for this large simple trial capable of meeting the recruitment goals outlined for ALLHAT, and we highlight factors associated with clinical center performance. Over 135,000 recruitment brochures were mailed to physicians. Requests for information and application packets were received from 9351 (6.8%) interested investigators. A total of 1053 completed applications were received and 909 sites (86%) were eventually approved to join the trial. Of the approved sites, 278 either later declined participation or were never activated, and 8 were closed within a year for lack of enrollment. The final 623 randomizing centers exceeded the trial's recruitment goal to enroll at least 40,000 participants into the trial, although the recruitment period was extended 1.5 years longer than planned. Fewer than a quarter of the sites (22.6%) were recruited from academic medical centers or Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. More than half of the sites (54.7%) were private solo or group practices, which contributed 53% of randomized participants. Community health centers comprised about 8% of the ALLHAT sites and 2.9% were part of health maintenance organizations. More than 22% of the principal investigators reported that they had no previous clinical research experience. In summary, ALLHAT was successful in recruiting a diverse group of clinical centers to achieve its patient recruitment goals.

Objective: Hypertension (HTN) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the setting of diabetes. There is no consensus on how best to treat hypertension among those with diabetes. Here we describe the characteristics of a cohort of hypertensive adults with diabetes who are part of a large prospective blood pressure study. This study will help clarify the treatment of HTN in the setting of diabetes., Research Design and Methods: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering high-risk hypertensive participants, ages > or = 55 years, designed to determine whether the incidence of fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease (CHD) and combined cardiovascular events (fatal and nonfatal CHD, revascularization surgery, angina pectoris, congestive heart failure, and stroke) differs between diuretic (chlorthalidone) treatment and three alternative antihypertensive therapies: a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), an ACE inhibitor (lisinopril), and an alpha-adrenergic blocker (doxazosin). The planned follow-up is an average of 6 years, to be completed March 2002., Results: There are 15,297 diabetic individuals in the ALLHAT study (36.0% of the entire cohort). Of these individuals, 50.2% are male, 39.4% are African-American, and 17.7% are Hispanic. Demographic and laboratory characteristics of the cohort are similar to those of other studies of the U.S. elderly population with HTN. The sample size has 42 and 93% confidence, treatments for the two study outcomes., Conclusions: The diabetic cohort in ALLHAT wil be able to provide valuable information about the treatment of hypertension in older diabetic patients at risk for incident CVD.

The Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) is a randomized, practice-based trial sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). The double-blind, active-controlled component of ALLHAT was designed to determine whether the rate of the primary outcome-a composite of fatal coronary heart disease and nonfatal myocardial infarction-differs between diuretic (chlorthalidone) treatment and each of three other classes of antihypertensive drugs: a calcium antagonist (amlodipine), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), and an alpha-adrenergic blocker (doxazosin) in high-risk hypertensive persons ages 55 years and older. In addition, 10,377 ALLHAT participants with mild to moderate hypercholesterolemia were also enrolled in a randomized, open-label trial designed to determine whether lowering serum LDL cholesterol with an HMG CoA reductase inhibitor (pravastatin) will reduce all-cause mortality as compared to a control group receiving "usual care." In January 2000, an independent data review committee recommended discontinuing the doxazosin treatment arm. The NHLBI director promptly accepted the recommendation. This article discusses the steps involved in the orderly closeout of one arm of ALLHAT and the dissemination of trial results. These steps included provisional preparations; the actual decision process; establishing a timetable; forming a transition committee; preparing materials and instructions; informing 65 trial officers and coordinators, 628 active clinics and satellite locations, 313 institutional review boards, over 42,000 patients, and the general public; reporting detailed trial results; and monitoring the closeout process. Control Clin Trials 2001;22:29-41

Objectives: This analysis was carried out to determine if revascularized patients derive benefit from the 3-hydroxy-3 methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor pravastatin., Background: The HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors result in substantial reductions in serum cholesterol and stabilization of atherosclerotic plaques in patients with coronary artery disease., Methods: Pravastatin was found to reduce clinical cardiovascular events in the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) trial consisting of 4,159 patients with a documented myocardial infarction and an average cholesterol level (mean 209 mg/dl and all <240 mg/dl). A total of 2,245 patients underwent coronary revascularization before randomization including 1,154 patients with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) alone, 876 patients with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) alone, and 215 patients with both procedures. Clinical events in revascularized patients were compared between patients on placebo and on pravastatin., Results: In the 2,245 patients who had undergone revascularization, the primary endpoint of coronary heart disease death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) was reduced by 4.1% with pravastatin (relative risk [RR] reduction 36%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17 to 51, p = 0.001). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 3.3% (RR reduction 39%, 95% CI 16 to 55, p = 0.002), postrandomization repeat revascularization was reduced by 2.6% (RR reduction 18%, 95% CI 1 to 33, p = 0.068) and stroke was reduced by 1.5% (RR reduction 39%, 95% CI 3 to 62, p = 0.037) with pravastatin. Pravastatin was beneficial in both the 1,154 PTCA patients and in the 1,091 CABG patients who had undergone revascularization before randomization., Conclusions: Pravastatin reduced clinical events in revascularized postinfarction patients with average cholesterol levels. This therapy was well tolerated and its use should be considered in most patients following coronary revascularization.

Background: The role of lipid modification in stroke prevention is controversial, although increasing evidence suggests that HMG-CoA reductase inhibition may reduce cerebrovascular events in patients with prevalent coronary artery disease., Methods and Results: To test the hypothesis that cholesterol reduction with pravastatin may reduce stroke incidence after myocardial infarction, we followed 4159 subjects with average total and LDL serum cholesterol levels (mean, 209 and 139 mg/dL, respectively) who had sustained an infarction an average of 10 months before study entry and who were randomized to pravastatin 40 mg/d or placebo in the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) trial. Using prospectively defined criteria, we assessed the incidence of stroke, a prespecified secondary end point, and transient ischemic attack (TIA) over a median 5-year follow-up period. Patients were well matched for stroke risk factors and the use of antiplatelet agents (85% of subjects in each group). Compared with placebo, pravastatin lowered total serum cholesterol by 20%, LDL cholesterol by 32%, and triglycerides by 14% and raised HDL cholesterol by 5% over the course of the trial. A total of 128 strokes (52 on pravastatin, 76 on placebo) and 216 strokes or TIAs (92 on pravastatin, 124 on placebo) were observed, representing a 32% reduction (95% CI, 4% to 52%, P=0.03) in all-cause stroke and 27% reduction in stroke or TIA (95% CI, 4% to 44%, P=0.02). All categories of strokes were reduced, and treatment effect was similar when adjusted for age, sex, history of hypertension, cigarette smoking, diabetes, left ventricular ejection fraction, and baseline total, HDL, and LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels. There was no increase in hemorrhagic stroke in patients on pravastatin compared with placebo (2 versus 6, respectively)., Conclusions: Pravastatin significantly reduced stroke and stroke or TIA incidence after myocardial infarction in patients with average serum cholesterol levels despite the high concurrent use of antiplatelet therapy.

Background: Although diabetes is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD), little information is available on the effects of lipid lowering in diabetic patients. We determined whether lipid-lowering treatment with pravastatin prevents recurrent cardiovascular events in diabetic patients with CHD and average cholesterol levels., Methods and Results: The Cholesterol And Recurrent Events (CARE) trial, a 5-year trial that compared the effect of pravastatin and placebo, included 586 patients (14.1%) with clinical diagnoses of diabetes. The participants with diabetes were older, more obese, and more hypertensive. The mean baseline lipid concentrations in the group with diabetes--136 mg/dL LDL cholesterol, 38 mg/dL HDL cholesterol, and 164 mg/dL triglycerides--were similar to those in the nondiabetic group. LDL cholesterol reduction by pravastatin was similar (27% and 28%) in the diabetic and nondiabetic groups, respectively. In the placebo group, the diabetic patients suffered more recurrent coronary events (CHD death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], CABG, and PTCA) than did the nondiabetic patients (37% versus 25%). Pravastatin treatment reduced the absolute risk of coronary events for the diabetic and nondiabetic patients by 8.1% and 5.2% and the relative risk by 25% (P=0.05) and 23% (P<0.001), respectively. Pravastatin reduced the relative risk for revascularization procedures by 32% (P=0.04) in the diabetic patients. In the 3553 patients who were not diagnosed as diabetic, 342 had impaired fasting glucose at entry defined by the American Diabetes Association as 110 to 125 mg/dL. These nondiabetic patients with impaired fasting glucose had a higher rate of recurrent coronary events than those with normal fasting glucose (eg, 13% versus 10% for nonfatal MI). Recurrence rates tended to be lower in the pravastatin compared with placebo group (eg, -50%, P=0.05 for nonfatal MI)., Conclusions: Diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with impaired fasting glucose are at high risk of recurrent coronary events that can be substantially reduced by pravastatin treatment.

Background: A majority of all myocardial infarctions occur in patients who are 65 years of age or older and have average cholesterol levels, but little information is available on whether cholesterol lowering in such patients reduces the rate of recurrent cardiovascular disease., Objective: To determine whether pravastatin reduces the rate of recurrent cardiovascular events in older patients., Design: Subset analysis of a randomized, controlled trial., Setting: 80 hospitals and affiliates in the United States and Canada., Patients: 1283 patients aged 65 to 75 years who had had myocardial infarction and had a plasma total cholesterol level less than 6.2 mmol/L (240 mg/dL) and a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of 3.0 to 4.5 mmol/L (115 to 174 mg/dL)., Intervention: Pravastatin, 40 mg/d, or placebo., Measurements: Five-year event rates of major coronary events (coronary death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, angioplasty, or bypass surgery) and stroke., Results: Major coronary events occurred in 28.1% of placebo recipients and 19.7% of pravastatin recipients (difference, 9.0 percentage points [95% CI, 4 to 13 percentage points]; relative risk reduction, 32%; P < 0.001). Coronary death occurred in 10.3% of the placebo group and in 5.8% of the pravastatin group (difference, 4.6 percentage points [CI, 1.9 to 6.5 percentage points]; relative risk reduction, 45%; P = 0.004). Stroke incidence was 7.3% in the placebo group and 4.5% in the pravastatin group (absolute reduction, 2.9 percentage points [CI, 0.3 to 4.5 percentage points]; relative reduction, 40%; P = 0.03). The numbers of older patients needed to treat for 5 years were 11 (CI, 8 to 24) to prevent a major coronary event and 22 (CI, 15 to 53) to prevent a coronary death. For every 1000 older patients treated, 225 cardiovascular hospitalizations would be prevented compared with 121 hospitalizations in 1000 younger patients., Conclusions: In older patients with myocardial infarction and cholesterol levels in the average range, pravastatin is associated with a clinically important reduction in risk for major coronary events and stroke. Given the high cardiovascular event rate in older patients, the potential for absolute benefit in this age group is substantial.

Background: In patients with high cholesterol levels, lowering the cholesterol level reduces the risk of coronary events, but the effect of lowering cholesterol levels in the majority of patients with coronary disease, who have average levels, is less clear., Methods: In a double-blind trial lasting five years we administered either 40 mg of pravastatin per day or placebo to 4159 patients (3583 men and 576 women) with myocardial infarction who had plasma total cholesterol levels below 240 mg per deciliter (mean, 209) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 115 to 174 mg per deciliter (mean, 139). The primary end point was a fatal coronary event or a nonfatal myocardial infarction., Results: The frequency of the primary end point was 10.2 percent in the pravastatin group and 13.2 percent in the placebo group, an absolute difference of 3 percentage points and a 24 percent reduction in risk (95 percent confidence interval, 9 to 36 percent; P = 0.003). Coronary bypass surgery was needed in 7.5 percent of the patients in the pravastatin group and 10 percent of those in the placebo group, a 26 percent reduction (P=0.005), and coronary angioplasty was needed in 8.3 percent of the pravastatin group and 10.5 percent of the placebo group, a 23 percent reduction (P=0.01). The frequency of stroke was reduced by 31 percent (P=0.03). There were no significant differences in overall mortality or mortality from noncardiovascular causes. Pravastatin lowered the rate of coronary events more among women than among men. The reduction in coronary events was also greater in patients with higher pretreatment levels of LDL cholesterol., Conclusions: These results demonstrate that the benefit of cholesterol-lowering therapy extends to the majority of patients with coronary disease who have average cholesterol levels.

Background: In the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) trial, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) was the most important predictor of a poor outcome and conferred a sevenfold increase in risk of death. The purpose of this study was to determine the predictors of recurrent MI in study participants and to examine the influence of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor captopril on this and other myocardial ischemic events., Methods and Results: The 2231 patients had survived the acute phase of MI (3 to 16 days) and had a radionuclide ventricular ejection fraction < or = 40%. Patients were randomly assigned to receive double-blind treatment with either placebo or captopril and were followed for an average of 42 months. The influence of captopril on recurrent MI, cardiac revascularization procedures, and hospitalization with unstable angina was examined. The likelihood of recurrent MI was greater in patients with an MI or functional disability before the index infarction and higher systolic pressure (all P < .001) but was not influenced by baseline left ventricular ejection fraction. Therapy with captopril reduced the risk of development of recurrent MI by 25% (95% confidence intervals, 5% to 40%; P = .015) and the risk of death after recurrent MI by 32% (95% confidence intervals, 4% to 51%; P = .029). Captopril-assigned patients were also less likely to require cardiac revascularization procedures (P = .010), but hospitalization for unstable angina was unaltered. When all three of these major coronary ischemic events were considered together, captopril therapy reduced the risk (14% risk reduction; 95% confidence intervals, 0% to 26%; P = .047)., Conclusions: In post-MI patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, long-term administration of captopril reduced recurrence of MI and the need for cardiac revascularization but had no influence on the rate of hospitalization with a discharge diagnosis of unstable angina. The finding that the recurrence of MI was independent of left ventricular ejection fraction suggests that captopril could be useful in preventing recurrent MI in patients with more preserved left ventricular function. The need for cardiac revascularization was reduced in patients receiving long-term captopril therapy, suggesting either an anti-ischemic effect or the ability of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor to modify the atherosclerotic process in survivors of MI.

The Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) Study demonstrated that long-term administration of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor captopril to recent survivors of myocardial infarction with left ventricular dysfunction resulted in a reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Analysis of multiple subgroups demonstrated that baseline demographics (older age) and clinical characteristics (such as prior MI, history of diabetes or hypertension), that have previously been associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events, were associated with greater end point event rates in SAVE regardless of therapy assignment at the time of randomization. The effectiveness of captopril therapy in reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity was examined in multiple subgroups. Although not all subgroups provided adequate statistical power, the benefits of captopril therapy were relatively uniform in the SAVE study. This indicates that the benefits were not confined to one particular subgroup and conversely that targeting of captopril therapy should be to the broadest group, as defined by SAVE entry criteria, to result in a reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity.

Background: Left ventricular dilatation and dysfunction after myocardial infarction are major predictors of death. In experimental and clinical studies, longterm therapy with the angiotensin-converting--enzyme inhibitor captopril attenuated ventricular dilatation and remodeling. We investigated whether captopril could reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after a myocardial infarction., Methods: Within 3 to 16 days after myocardial infarction, 2231 patients with ejection fractions of 40 percent or less but without overt heart failure or symptoms of myocardial ischemia were randomly assigned to receive doubleblind treatment with either placebo (1116 patients) or captopril (1115 patients) and were followed for an average of 42 months., Results: Mortality from all causes was significantly reduced in the captopril group (228 deaths, or 20 percent) as compared with the placebo group (275 deaths, or 25 percent); the reduction in risk was 19 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 3 to 32 percent; P = 0.019). In addition, the incidence of both fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events was consistently reduced in the captopril group. The reduction in risk was 21 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 5 to 35 percent; P = 0.014) for death from cardiovascular causes, 37 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 20 to 50 percent; P less than 0.001) for the development of severe heart failure, 22 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 4 to 37 percent; P = 0.019) for congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization, and 25 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 5 to 40 percent; P = 0.015) for recurrent myocardial infarction., Conclusions: In patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction, long-term administration of captopril was associated with an improvement in survival and reduced morbidity and mortality due to major cardiovascular events. These benefits were observed in patients who received thrombolytic therapy, aspirin, or beta-blockers, as well as those who did not, suggesting that treatment with captopril leads to additional improvement in outcome among selected survivors of myocardial infarction.

The Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial was a randomized clinical trial of propranolol versus placebo in 3837 patients after myocardial infarction. A 24 hour ambulatory ECG was obtained before therapy in 3290 patients 2 to 21 days after myocardial infarction. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and prevalence were calculated for four definitions of ventricular arrhythmia with either total or sudden death (death in less than 1 hour of observed symptoms) as an endpoint. These indexes were obtained using the first 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours plus a random hour, a random daytime hour, and a random nighttime hour of the 24-hour ECG of 1336 placebo patients. For both total death and sudden death, as the duration of monitoring increased, (1) prevalence increased, (2) sensitivity increased, (3) specificity decreased, (4) positive predictive value either changed very little or decreased, and (5) negative predictive value was high (greater than 90%) and increased slightly. None of the 3 random hours offered anything beyond the first hour. The Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial data, which were based on an average follow-up of 25 months, show that as the number of hours of ambulatory monitoring increase, the percentages of patients identified at risk or not at risk (the positive and negative predictive values) do not change much. Twenty-four hours of monitoring does not appear to be the optimal time duration for deciding whether to treat arrhythmias in patients after infarction.

The purpose of this study was to examine the value of various durations of ambulatory ECG recording with regard to providing useful prognostic information. The authors explored a decision theoretic approach to determine the most useful period of monitoring for making a treatment decision based upon postulated benefit-to-risk ratios of antiarrhythmic therapies. They used data collected as part of the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial (BHAT), a randomized clinical trial of propranolol versus placebo in 3,837 post-myocardial-infarction patients. In BHAT, 1,336 placebo-treated patients had a 24-hour ambulatory ECG that had at least 23 readable hours. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for eight definitions of ventricular arrhythmia using either total mortality or sudden death (death within one hour of symptoms) as an endpoint. These indices were obtained using the first 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours plus a random hour, a random daytime hour, and a random nighttime hour of the 24-hour ECG of 1,336 placebo-treated patients. The study showed that in the case of high-risk, low-benefit therapies, no test is needed to make a treatment decision. No one should be treated. In the case of high-benefit, low-risk therapies, again, no test is required. Everyone should be treated. For therapies in the middle benefit-to-risk ratio range the most appropriate test for a treatment decision changes from the very specific to the most sensitive. Twenty-four hours of ambulatory monitoring is usually not necessary for a treatment decision, since four hours is likely to be sufficient.