Search

Background: Clinical practice guidelines have traditionally recommended blood pressure treatment based primarily on blood pressure thresholds. In contrast, using predicted cardiovascular risk has been advocated as a more effective strategy to guide treatment decisions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. We aimed to compare outcomes from a blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk with one based on systolic blood pressure (SBP) level.Methods and Findings: We used individual participant data from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC) from 1995 to 2013. Trials randomly assigned participants to either blood pressure-lowering drugs versus placebo or more intensive versus less intensive blood pressure-lowering regimens. We estimated 5-y risk of CVD events using a multivariable Weibull model previously developed in this dataset. We compared the two strategies at specific SBP thresholds and across the spectrum of risk and blood pressure levels studied in BPLTTC trials. The primary outcome was number of CVD events avoided per persons treated. We included data from 11 trials (47,872 participants). During a median of 4.0 y of follow-up, 3,566 participants (7.5%) experienced a major cardiovascular event. Areas under the curve comparing the two treatment strategies throughout the range of possible thresholds for CVD risk and SBP demonstrated that, on average, a greater number of CVD events would be avoided for a given number of persons treated with the CVD risk strategy compared with the SBP strategy (area under the curve 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.72] for the CVD risk strategy versus 0.54 [95% CI 0.53-0.55] for the SBP strategy). Compared with treating everyone with SBP ≥ 150 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 29% (95% CI 26%-31%) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 16% (95% CI 14%-18%) more events for the same number of persons treated. Compared with treating everyone with SBP ≥ 140 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 3.8% (95% CI 12.5% fewer to 7.2% more) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 3.1% (95% CI 1.5%-5.0%) more events for the same number of persons treated, although the former estimate was not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses, the CVD risk strategy did not appear to be more beneficial than the SBP strategy in patients with diabetes mellitus or established CVD.Conclusions: A blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk is more effective than one based on blood pressure levels alone across a range of thresholds. These results support using cardiovascular risk assessment to guide blood pressure treatment decision-making in moderate- to high-risk individuals, particularly for primary prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective recruitment is a prerequisite for successful execution of a clinical trial. ALLHAT, a large hypertension treatment trial (N= 42,418), provided an opportunity to evaluate adaptive modeling of recruitment processes using conditional moving linear regression. Our statistical modeling of recruitment, comparing Brownian and fractional Brownian motion, indicates that fractional Brownian motion combined with moving linear regression is better than classic Brownian motion in terms of higher conditional probability of achieving a global recruitment goal in 4-week ahead projections. Further research is needed to evaluate how recruitment modeling can assist clinical trialists in planning and executing clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discovery and validation of genetic variants that influence disease severity in children with sickle cell anemia (SCA) could lead to early identification of high-risk patients, better screening strategies, and intervention with targeted and preventive therapy. We hypothesized that newly identified genetic risk factors for the general African American population could also impact laboratory biomarkers known to contribute to the clinical disease expression of SCA, including variants influencing the white blood cell count and the development of albuminuria and abnormal glomerular filtration rate. We first investigated candidate genetic polymorphisms in well-characterized SCA pediatric cohorts from three prospective NHLBI-supported clinical trials: HUSTLE, SWiTCH, and TWiTCH. We also performed whole exome sequencing to identify novel genetic variants, using both a discovery and a validation cohort. Among candidate genes, DARC rs2814778 polymorphism regulating Duffy antigen expression had a clear influence with significantly increased WBC and neutrophil counts, but did not affect the maximum tolerated dose of hydroxyurea therapy. The APOL1 G1 polymorphism, an identified risk factor for non-diabetic renal disease, was associated with albuminuria. Whole exome sequencing discovered several novel variants that maintained significance in the validation cohorts, including ZFHX4 polymorphisms affecting both the leukocyte and neutrophil counts, as well as AGGF1, CYP4B1, CUBN, TOR2A, PKD1L2, and CD163 variants affecting the glomerular filtration rate. The identification of robust, reliable, and reproducible genetic markers for disease severity in SCA remains elusive, but new genetic variants provide avenues for further validation and investigation. [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]

Background: For children with sickle cell anaemia and high transcranial doppler (TCD) flow velocities, regular blood transfusions can effectively prevent primary stroke, but must be continued indefinitely. The efficacy of hydroxycarbamide (hydroxyurea) in this setting is unknown; we performed the TWiTCH trial to compare hydroxyurea with standard transfusions.Methods: TWiTCH was a multicentre, phase 3, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial done at 26 paediatric hospitals and health centres in the USA and Canada. We enrolled children with sickle cell anaemia who were aged 4-16 years and had abnormal TCD flow velocities (≥ 200 cm/s) but no severe vasculopathy. After screening, eligible participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to continue standard transfusions (standard group) or hydroxycarbamide (alternative group). Randomisation was done at a central site, stratified by site with a block size of four, and an adaptive randomisation scheme was used to balance the covariates of baseline age and TCD velocity. The study was open-label, but TCD examinations were read centrally by observers masked to treatment assignment and previous TCD results. Participants assigned to standard treatment continued to receive monthly transfusions to maintain 30% sickle haemoglobin or lower, while those assigned to the alternative treatment started oral hydroxycarbamide at 20 mg/kg per day, which was escalated to each participant's maximum tolerated dose. The treatment period lasted 24 months from randomisation. The primary study endpoint was the 24 month TCD velocity calculated from a general linear mixed model, with the non-inferiority margin set at 15 cm/s. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01425307.Findings: Between Sept 20, 2011, and April 17, 2013, 159 patients consented and enrolled in TWiTCH. 121 participants passed screening and were then randomly assigned to treatment (61 to transfusions and 60 to hydroxycarbamide). At the first scheduled interim analysis, non-inferiority was shown and the sponsor terminated the study. Final model-based TCD velocities were 143 cm/s (95% CI 140-146) in children who received standard transfusions and 138 cm/s (135-142) in those who received hydroxycarbamide, with a difference of 4·54 (0·10-8·98). Non-inferiority (p=8·82 × 10(-16)) and post-hoc superiority (p=0·023) were met. Of 29 new neurological events adjudicated centrally by masked reviewers, no strokes were identified, but three transient ischaemic attacks occurred in each group. Magnetic resonance brain imaging and angiography (MRI and MRA) at exit showed no new cerebral infarcts in either treatment group, but worsened vasculopathy in one participant who received standard transfusions. 23 severe adverse events in nine (15%) patients were reported for hydroxycarbamide and ten serious adverse events in six (10%) patients were reported for standard transfusions. The most common serious adverse event in both groups was vaso-occlusive pain (11 events in five [8%] patients with hydroxycarbamide and three events in one [2%] patient for transfusions).Interpretation: For high-risk children with sickle cell anaemia and abnormal TCD velocities who have received at least 1 year of transfusions, and have no MRA-defined severe vasculopathy, hydroxycarbamide treatment can substitute for chronic transfusions to maintain TCD velocities and help to prevent primary stroke.Funding: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Previous studies have reported that risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality substantially increases in hypertensive patients, especially among those with inadequate blood pressure control. Two common antihypertensive drug classes including thiazide diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors affect different enzymes in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). In the RAAS, angiotensinogen is converted into angiotensin II which increases blood pressure through vasoconstriction. Using a case-only design with 3448 high-risk hypertensive individuals from the Genetics of Hypertension Associated Treatment (GenHAT) study, we examined whether seven single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the angiotensinogen gene (AGT) interact with three classes of antihypertensive drugs including chlorthalidone (a thiazide diuretic), lisinopril (an ACE inhibitor), and amlodipine (a calcium channel blocker) to modify the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) and heart failure (HF) among Caucasian and African American participants, separately. We found no gene by treatment interactions to be statistically significant after correction for multiple testing. However, some suggestive results were found. African American participants with the minor allele of rs11122576 had over two-fold higher risk of CHD when using chlorthalidone compared to using amlodipine, or lisinopril compared to amlodipine (p = 0.006 and p = 0.01, respectively). Other marginal associations are also reported among both race groups. The findings reported here suggest that rs11122576 could contribute to future personalization of antihypertensive treatment among African Americans though more studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Benazepril Plus Amlodipine or Hydrochlorothiazide for Hypertension in High-risk Patients," by K. Jamerson, M.A. Weber, G.L. Bakris, et al. published in the December 4, 2008 issue.

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

The article presents a study comparing the outcomes by race in hypertensive patients with and without the metabolic syndrome. To examine this case, a subgroup analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) was used. Results show that ALLHAT failed to support the preference for calcium channel blockers compared with thiazide-type diuretics in patients with the MetS, particularly for black participants. Further information on the topic is offered.

Background: The aim of this study was to determine whether the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) insertion-deletion (ID) polymorphism interacts with pravastatin to modify the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and other cardiovascular end points in a large clinical trial.Methods: GenHAT is an ancillary study of the ALLHAT. The ACE ID genotyped population in the lipid-lowering arm of ALLHAT included 9467 participants randomly assigned to pravastatin (n = 4741) or to usual care (n = 4726). The efficacy of pravastatin in reducing the risk of primary outcome (all-cause mortality) and secondary outcomes (fatal CHD and nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiovascular disease [CVD] mortality, CHD, stroke, other CVD, non-CVD mortality, stroke, and heart failure) was compared between the genotype strata (dominant model ID + II vs DD, additive model II vs ID vs DD), by examining an interaction term in a Cox proportional hazards model.Results: The relative risk of fatal CHD and nonfatal myocardial infarction among subjects randomized to pravastatin compared with subjects randomized to usual care was similar in subjects with the II genotype (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% CI 0.59-1.18), the ID genotype (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68-1.03), and the DD genotype (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77-1.27).Conclusions: We found no evidence that the ACE ID genotype was a major modifier of the efficacy of pravastatin in reducing the risk of cardiovascular events. [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]

The findings of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) have generated worldwide reaction from clinicians and researchers, including a recent commentary in this journal. Such response was expected for a trial of ALLHAT's size and scope, especially since its results challenged some widely held beliefs. This paper reviews key aspects of the ALLHAT design, analyses, findings, and conclusions to provide a perspective on the commentary about the trial's results and implications for clinical practice. Several of the most frequent comments regarding the study's results are addressed, particularly with respect to heart failure and diabetes outcomes. Responses to these comments reinforce the investigators' original conclusion that thiazide-type diuretics should remain the preferred first-step drug class for treating hypertension and should generally be a part of any multidrug regimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "A Comparison of Outcomes With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Diuretics for Hypertension in the Elderly," by L. M. H. Wing, C. M. Reid and P. Ryan in a 2003 issue.

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... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [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]

Presents the reply to those who submitted letters to the editor concerning the study conducted on antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attacks.

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 L39 to 242, p = 0.073) because of a 40-day (95% CIL87 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]