Search

Background/aims: The value of the Framingham equation in predicting cardiovascular risk in African Americans and patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is unclear. The purpose of the study was to evaluate whether the addition of CKD and race to the Framingham equation improves risk stratification in hypertensive patients., Methods: Participants in the ALLHAT were studied. Those randomized to doxazosin, older than 74 years, and those with a history of coronary heart disease were excluded. Two risk stratification models were developed using Cox proportional hazards models in a two-thirds developmental sample. The first model included the traditional Framingham risk factors. The second model included the traditional risk factors plus CKD, defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate categories, and stratification by race (black vs non-black). The primary outcome was a composite of fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, and hospitalized angina., Results: There were a total of 19,811 eligible subjects. In the validation cohort, there was no difference in C-statistics between the Framingham equation and the ALLHAT model including CKD and race. This was consistent across subgroups by race and sex and among those with CKD. One exception was among Non-Black women where the C-statistic was higher for the Framingham equation (0.68 vs 0.65, P = .02). In addition, net reclassification improvement was not significant for any subgroup based on race and sex, ranging from -5.5% to 4.4%., Conclusion: The addition of CKD status and stratification by race does not improve risk prediction in high-risk hypertensive patients., (Copyright © 2012 Mosby, 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.

Historically, blood pressure control in Hispanics has been considerably less than that of non-Hispanic whites and blacks. We compared determinants of blood pressure control among Hispanic white, Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, and non-Hispanic black participants (N=32 642) during follow-up in a randomized, practice-based, active-controlled trial. Hispanic blacks and whites represented 3% and 16% of the cohort, respectively; 33% were non-Hispanic black and 48% were non-Hispanic white. Hispanics were less likely to be controlled (<140/90 mm Hg) at enrollment, but within 6 to 12 months of follow-up, Hispanics had a greater proportion <140/90 mm Hg compared with non-Hispanics. At 4 years of follow-up, blood pressure was controlled in 72% of Hispanic whites, 69% of Hispanic blacks, 67% of non-Hispanic whites, and 59% of non-Hispanic blacks. Compared with non-Hispanic whites, Hispanic whites had a 20% greater odds of achieving BP control by 2 years of follow-up (odds ratio: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.31) after controlling for demographic variables and comorbidities, Hispanic blacks had a similar odds of achieving BP control (odds ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.25), and non-Hispanic blacks had a 27% lower odds (odds ratio: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.78). We conclude that in all patients high levels of blood pressure control can be achieved with commonly available medications and that Hispanic ethnicity is not associated with inferior control in the setting of a clinical trial in which hypertensive patients had equal access to medical care, and medication was provided at no cost.