PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Barry R Davis

Publications and source records attributed to Barry R Davis.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2025

Blood Pressure Lowering and Risk of Cancer: Individual Participant-Level Data Meta-Analysis and Mendelian Randomization Studies.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic blood pressure (BP) lowering is typically a lifelong treatment, and both clinicians and patients may have concerns about the long-term use of antihypertensive agents and the risk for cancer. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effect of long-term pharmacologic BP lowering on the risk for new-onset cancer is limited, with most knowledge derived from observational studies. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess whether long-term BP lowering affects the risk for new-onset cancer, cause-specific cancer death, and selected site-specific cancers. METHODS: Individual-level data from 42 RCTs were pooled using a one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis. The primary outcome was incident cancer of all types, and secondary outcomes were cause-specific cancer death and selected site-specific cancers. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the heterogeneity of the BP-lowering effect by baseline variables and over follow-up time. Cox proportional hazards regression, stratified by trial, was used for the statistical analysis. For site-specific cancers, analyses were complemented with Mendelian randomization, using naturally randomized genetic variants associated with BP lowering to mimic the design of a long-term RCT. RESULTS: Data from 314,016 randomly allocated participants without known cancer at baseline were analyzed. Over a median follow-up of 4 years (Q1-Q3: 3-5 years), 17,954 participants (5.7%) developed cancer, and 4,878 (1.5%) died of cancer. In the individual participant data meta-analysis, no associations were found between reductions in systolic or diastolic BP and cancer risk (HR per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.99-1.06]; HR per 3 mm Hg reduction in diastolic BP: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.98-1.07]). No changes in relative risk for incident cancer were observed over follow-up time, nor was there evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects across baseline subgroups. No effect on cause-specific cancer death was found. For site-specific cancers, no evidence of an effect was observed, except a possible link with lung cancer risk (HR for systolic BP reduction: 1.17; 99.5% CI: 1.02-1.32). Mendelian randomization studies showed no association between systolic or diastolic BP reduction and site-specific cancers, including overall lung cancer and its subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized data analysis provided no evidence to indicate that pharmacologic BP lowering has a substantial impact, either increasing or decreasing, on the risk for incident cancer, cause-specific cancer death, or selected site-specific cancers.

epidemiology↗
PubMed2007

The Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) Heart Failure Validation Study: diagnosis and prognosis.

BACKGROUND: ALLHAT, a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled hypertension treatment trial in 42,418 patients, reported that a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone) was superior to a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), and an alpha1-blocker (doxazosin) in preventing the new onset of heart failure (HF). However, questions have been raised regarding the validity of the HF diagnosis. METHODS: The ALLHAT HF Validation Study was designed to validate and elucidate the significance of HF events in ALLHAT. Records for 2778 HF hospitalizations in 1935 patients were centrally reviewed using several prespecified algorithms (based on ALLHAT and Framingham criteria) and reviewers' global clinical judgment. Percent agreement with diagnoses assigned by ALLHAT site physicians, relative risks across randomized comparisons, incidence rates, and mortality after HF hospitalization were evaluated for first events validated by each of the criteria sets. RESULTS: Percent agreements with site physician diagnoses were 71%, 80%, and 84% for ALLHAT, Framingham, and reviewers' judgment, respectively. Using these 3 criteria, relative risks (95% CI) for new-onset HF compared with chlorthalidone were, respectively, 1.46 (1.27-1.68), 1.42 (1.25-1.62), and 1.45 (1.28-1.64) for amlodipine; 1.18 (1.02-1.28), 1.13 (0.99-1.30), and 1.15 (1.01-1.32) for lisinopril; and 1.79 (1.51-2.11), 1.71 (1.46-2.00), and 1.80 (1.55-2.10) for doxazosin. CONCLUSIONS: An independent review of source documentation showed a high degree of agreement with the HF diagnoses assigned by site physicians and confirmed the higher risk of HF associated with first-step therapy using amlodipine, lisinopril, or doxazosin compared with chlorthalidone. Thiazide-type diuretics should be the preferred first-step therapy for prevention of HF in high-risk patients with hypertension.

Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists↗
PubMed2007

Absence of an interaction between the angiotensin-converting enzyme insertion-deletion polymorphism and pravastatin on cardiovascular disease in high-risk hypertensive patients: the Genetics of Hypertension-Associated Treatment (GenHAT) study.

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.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Fasting glucose levels and incident diabetes mellitus in older nondiabetic adults randomized to receive 3 different classes of antihypertensive treatment: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

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.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Clinical events in high-risk hypertensive patients randomly assigned to calcium channel blocker versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial.

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) provides a unique opportunity to compare the long-term relative safety and efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and calcium channel blocker-initiated therapy in older hypertensive individuals. Patients were randomized to amlodipine (n=9048) or lisinopril (n=9054). The primary outcome was combined fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction, analyzed by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, stroke, combined cardiovascular disease (CVD), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cancer, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Mean follow-up was 4.9 years. Blood pressure control was similar in nonblacks, but not in blacks. No significant differences were found between treatment groups for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, ESRD, or cancer. Stroke rates were higher on lisinopril in blacks (RR=1.51, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.86) but not in nonblacks (RR=1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.28), and in women (RR=1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.79), but not in men (RR=1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.31). Rates of combined CVD were higher (RR=1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12) because of higher rates for strokes, peripheral arterial disease, and angina, which were partly offset by lower rates for heart failure (RR=0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96) on lisinopril compared with amlodipine. Gastrointestinal bleeds and angioedema were higher on lisinopril. Patients with and without baseline coronary heart disease showed similar outcome patterns. We conclude that in hypertensive patients, the risks for coronary events are similar, but for stroke, combined CVD, gastrointestinal bleeding, and angioedema are higher and for heart failure are lower for lisinopril-based compared with amlodipine-based therapy. Some, but not all, of these differences may be explained by less effective blood pressure control in the lisinopril arm.

Amlodipine↗
PubMed2006

Role of diuretics in the prevention of heart failure: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial.

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.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2006

Cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients stratified by baseline glomerular filtration rate.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease is common in older patients with hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of coronary heart disease (CHD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) events; to determine whether glomerular filtration rate (GFR) independently predicts risk for CHD; and to report the efficacy of first-step treatment with a calcium-channel blocker (amlodipine) or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), each compared with a diuretic (chlorthalidone), in modifying cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in high-risk patients with hypertension stratified by GFR. DESIGN: Post hoc subgroup analysis. SETTING: Multicenter randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Persons with hypertension who were 55 years of age or older with 1 or more risk factors for CHD and who were stratified into 3 baseline GFR groups: normal or increased (> or = 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2; n = 8126 patients), mild reduction (60 to 89 mL/min per 1.73 m2; n = 18,109 patients), and moderate or severe reduction (< 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2; n = 5662 patients). INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of ESRD, CHD, stroke, and combined CVD (CHD, coronary revascularization, angina, stroke, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease). RESULTS: In participants with a moderate to severe reduction in GFR, 6-year rates were higher for CHD than for ESRD (15.4% vs. 6.0%, respectively). A baseline GFR of less than 53 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (compared with >104 mL/min per 1.73 m2) was independently associated with a 32% higher risk for CHD. Amlodipine was similar to chlorthalidone in reducing CHD (16.0% vs. 15.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.27]), stroke, and combined CVD (CHD, coronary revascularization, angina, stroke, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease), but less effective in preventing heart failure. Lisinopril was similar to chlorthalidone in preventing CHD (15.1% vs. 15.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.00 [CI, 0.84 to 1.20]), but was less effective in reducing stroke, combined CVD events, and heart failure. LIMITATIONS: Proteinuria data were not available, and combination therapies were not tested. CONCLUSIONS: Older high-risk patients with hypertension and reduced GFR are more likely to develop CHD than to develop ESRD. A low GFR independently predicts increased risk for CHD. Neither amlodipine nor lisinopril is superior to chlorthalidone in preventing CHD, stroke, or combined CVD, and chlorthalidone is superior to both for preventing heart failure, independent of level of renal function.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Incidence and predictors of angioedema in elderly hypertensive patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

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.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Clinical outcomes in antihypertensive treatment of type 2 diabetes, impaired fasting glucose concentration, and normoglycemia: Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

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.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Pharmacogenetic association of the angiotensin-converting enzyme insertion/deletion polymorphism on blood pressure and cardiovascular risk in relation to antihypertensive treatment: the Genetics of Hypertension-Associated Treatment (GenHAT) study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported that blood pressure response to antihypertensive medications is influenced by genetic variation in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, but no clinical trails have tested whether the ACE insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism modifies the association between the type of medication and multiple cardiovascular and renal phenotypes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a double-blind, active-controlled randomized trial of antihypertensive treatment that included hypertensives > or =55 years of age with > or =1 risk factor for cardiovascular disease. ACE I/D genotypes were determined in 37 939 participants randomized to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, lisinopril, or doxazosin treatments and followed up for 4 to 8 years. Primary outcomes included fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included stroke, all-cause mortality, combined CHD, and combined cardiovascular disease. Fatal and nonfatal CHD occurred in 3096 individuals during follow-up. The hazard rates for fatal and nonfatal CHD and the secondary outcomes were similar across antihypertensive treatments. ACE I/D genotype group was not associated with fatal and nonfatal CHD (relative risk of DD versus ID and II, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.07) or any secondary outcome. The 6-year hazard rate for fatal and nonfatal CHD in the DD genotype group was not statistically different from the ID and II genotype group by type of treatment. No secondary outcome measure was statistically different across antihypertensive treatment and ACE I/D genotype strata. CONCLUSIONS: ACE I/D genotype group was not a predictor of CHD, nor did it modify the response to antihypertensive treatment. We conclude that the ACE I/D polymorphism is not a useful marker to predict antihypertensive treatment response.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Renal outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or a calcium channel blocker vs a diuretic: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

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 (> or =90 mL /min per 1.73 m(2), n = 8126), mild reduction (60-89 mL /min per 1.73 m(2), n = 18 109), or moderate-severe reduction (<60 mL /min per 1.73 m(2), 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 m(2) 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.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Outcomes in hypertensive black and nonblack patients treated with chlorthalidone, amlodipine, and lisinopril.

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.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Long-term effect of diuretic-based therapy on fatal outcomes in subjects with isolated systolic hypertension with and without diabetes.

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.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Impact of mild or moderate chronic kidney disease on the frequency of restenosis: results from the PRESTO trial.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine if restenosis is increased in mild and moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Mortality is increased in CKD after PCI. Restenosis may contribute to increased late mortality. METHODS: We analyzed 11,187 patients with a creatinine <1.8 mg/dl from the Prevention of REStenosis with Tranilast and its Outcomes (PRESTO) trial, grouped by estimated creatinine clearance (CrCl) (<60, 60 to 89, >89 ml/min). The Cox proportional hazards models investigated the association between CrCl group and death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Generalized estimating equation regression models determined the association between CrCl group and lesion-specific restenosis. RESULTS: At 30 days, there was no difference in myocardial infarction, death, or TVR between the CrCl groups. At nine months, mortality was higher in the lowest CrCl group (2.2%, 1.2%, 0.8%; p < 0.001), which was no longer significant after adjusting for confounding variables. Myocardial infarction and TVR were not different between the groups. In patients undergoing protocol follow-up angiography, restenosis (>/=50%) was not increased with CKD (32%, 32%, 37%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality nine months after PCI is mildly increased in mild or moderate CKD patients. However, restenosis is not and does not account for the increased mortality.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Imputing gene-treatment interactions when the genotype distribution is unknown using case-only and putative placebo analyses--a new method for the Genetics of Hypertension Associated Treatment (GenHAT) study.

There is a sizeable literature on methods for detecting gene-environment interaction in the framework of case-control studies, particularly with reference to the assumption of independence of genotype and exposure. In the context of a clinical trial, wherein gene-drug interactions with regard to outcomes are examined, these methods may be readily applied, as gene and drug are independent by randomization. In an active-controlled trial (experimental treatment vs standard) that has collected genotype information, gene-drug interactions can be estimated. In addition, the effect of the experimental treatment vs placebo can be imputed by using data from a historical placebo-controlled trial (standard vs placebo) if either (a) genotype information is available from the historical trial or (b) assumptions are made about the prevalence of genotype and the odds ratios of genotype and disease in the historical trial using information from other studies. Motivation for these procedures is provided by the Genetics of Hypertension Associated Treatment, a large pharmacogenetics, ancillary study of a hypertension clinical trial, and examples from published hypertension trials will be used to illustrate the methods.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2004

ALLHAT: setting the record straight.

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.

Antihypertensive Agents↗
PubMed2004

Relation of metformin treatment to clinical events in diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous intervention.

Diabetic patients undergoing coronary interventions have worse clinical and angiographic outcomes than do patients without diabetes. Metformin, an insulin sensitizer, may decrease the occurrence of these outcomes. Diabetic patients in the Prevention of Restenosis with Tranilast and its Outcomes Trial were identified through their medical records (n = 2,772). In this trial, 1,110 diabetic patients received nonsensitizer therapy (insulin and/or sulfonylureas) and 887 received sensitizer therapy (metformin with or without additional therapy). Logistic regression was used to obtain odds ratios (ORs) (sensitizer vs nonsensitizer therapy) of any clinical event (death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) and adjusted for multiple risk factors. Multivariate analysis showed no effect of lesion characteristics on clinical outcomes. Compared with patients on nonsensitizer therapy, those on sensitizer therapy showed an adjusted OR of 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.91, p = 0.005) for any clinical event. The differences between the nonsensitizer therapy group and the sensitizer group were attributable mainly to decreased rates of death (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.77, p = 0.007) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66, p = 0.002). In our retrospective analysis, use of metformin in diabetics undergoing coronary interventions appeared to decrease adverse clinical events, especially death and myocardial infarction, compared with diabetic patients treated with nonsensitizer therapy.

Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary↗