Explore the vast range of titles available.

Trials of statin therapy have had conflicting findings on the risk of development of diabetes mellitus in patients given statins. We aimed to establish by a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data whether any relation exists between statin use and development of diabetes. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1994 to 2009, for randomised controlled endpoint trials of statins. We included only trials with more than 1000 patients, with identical follow-up in both groups and duration of more than 1 year. We excluded trials of patients with organ transplants or who needed haemodialysis. We used the I 2 statistic to measure heterogeneity between trials and calculated risk estimates for incident diabetes with random-effect meta-analysis. We identified 13 statin trials with 91 140 participants, of whom 4278 (2226 assigned statins and 2052 assigned control treatment) developed diabetes during a mean of 4 years. Statin therapy was associated with a 9% increased risk for incident diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 1·09; 95% CI 1·02–1·17), with little heterogeneity ( I 2=11%) between trials. Meta-regression showed that risk of development of diabetes with statins was highest in trials with older participants, but neither baseline body-mass index nor change in LDL-cholesterol concentrations accounted for residual variation in risk. Treatment of 255 (95% CI 150–852) patients with statins for 4 years resulted in one extra case of diabetes. Statin therapy is associated with a slightly increased risk of development of diabetes, but the risk is low both in absolute terms and when compared with the reduction in coronary events. Clinical practice in patients with moderate or high cardiovascular risk or existing cardiovascular disease should not change. None.

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

Thiazide-type diuretics have been recommended for initial treatment of hypertension in most patients, but should this recommendation differ for patients with and without coronary heart disease (CHD)? The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) was a randomized, double-blind hypertension treatment trial in 42,418 participants with high risk of combined cardiovascular disease (CVD) (25% with preexisting CHD). This post hoc analysis compares long-term major clinical outcomes in those assigned amlodipine (n = 9048) or lisinopril (n = 9,054) with those assigned chlorthalidone (n = 15,255), stratified by CHD status. After 4 to 8 years, randomized treatment was discontinued. Total follow-up (active treatment + passive surveillance using national databases for deaths and hospitalizations) was 8 to 13 years. For most CVD outcomes, end-stage renal disease, and total mortality, there were no differences across randomized treatment arms regardless of baseline CHD status. In-trial rates of CVD were significantly higher for lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone, and rates of heart failure were significantly higher for amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone in those with and without CHD (overall hazard ratios [HRs] 1.10, p <0.001, and 1.38, p <0.001, respectively). During extended follow-up, significant outcomes according to CHD status interactions (p = 0.012) were noted in amlodipine versus chlorthalidone comparison for CVD and CHD mortality (HR 0.88, p = 0.04, and 0.84, p = 0.04, respectively) in those with CHD at baseline (HR 1.06, p = 0.15, and 1.08, p = 0.17) and in those without. The results of the overall increased stroke mortality in lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone (HR 1.2; p = 0.03) and hospitalized heart failure in amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone (HR 1.12; p = 0.01) during extended follow-up did not differ by baseline CHD status. In conclusion, these results provide no reason to alter our previous recommendation to include a properly dosed diuretic (such as chlorthalidone 12.5 to 25 mg/day) in the initial antihypertensive regimen for most hypertensive patients.

Chronic kidney disease is common in older patients with hypertension. 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. Post hoc subgroup analysis. Multicenter randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. 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). Random assignment to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril. Rates of ESRD, CHD, stroke, and combined CVD (CHD, coronary revascularization, angina, stroke, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease). 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. Proteinuria data were not available, and combination therapies were not tested. 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.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and cancer are both common in older patients; whether CKD increases risk for cancer is unclear. This study evaluated CKD as a risk factor for cancer mortality in a large cohort of hypertensive patients. We did post-hoc analyses of in-trial and post-trial data from participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Participants were ≥ 55 years old with hypertension and one other additional risk factor for coronary heart disease. Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Cancer mortality was ascertained by cancer-related deaths reported in national databases during and after the trial. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for possible confounders and were stratified by baseline GFR. Participants' mean age was 66.9 years. After a mean follow-up of 8.9 years, there were 2,338 reported cancer-related deaths. Participants with GFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m were at increased risk of cancer mortality compared to those with GFR ≥ 90 mL/min/1.73 m (adjusted HR 1.54 (1.22 - 1.94), p-value for trend 0.004). These findings were consistent across subgroups defined by race, gender, and diabetes. Participants with GFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m were at higher risk for mortality related to colon cancer (p-value for trend 0.048, HR 2.28 (1.12 - 4.62)) and urinary tract cancer (p-value for trend 0.001, adjusted HR 2.95 (1.14 - 7.65)). This is a post hoc analysis of clinical trial data. In a large cohort of hypertensive patients, GFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m was associated with a higher risk of cancer-related mortality.

A rapid decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate over 2 years in a large hypertensive cohort was associated with similar risks for overall cardiovascular disease in people with or without diabetes mellitus, but with higher all-cause mortality, heart failure, and end stage renal disease risk in people with diabetes.

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.

Initially, it was planned that 270 sites would recruit 150 participants each; to reach the ALLHAT recruitment goal of a total of 40,000 participants.4 Only 12% of the ALLHAT centers met the original recruitment goal.7 Multiple factors contributed to the inability of most sites to recruit 150 participants, including limited funding, insufficient funding for full-time study site personnel; the unexpected lack of interested managed care organizations and large group practices; and in some large group practices that were recruited, the investigators' lack of success in gaining colleagues' support of the trial due to concerns about whether some of the randomized treatments conformed to current community standards of treatment.7 When it became apparent that many sites would not meet this ambitious goal, the regional coordinators began to participate in site selection to identify additional sites. The main objectives of early regional coordinator involvement in the site selection process were to select sites that: (1) would be able to meet recruitment goals, (2) understand their requirements in the study, and, (3) have a high likelihood of obtaining regulatory approval and begin prompt participant recruitment.9 Once a site was approved for ALLHAT, regional coordinators guided sites through the regulatory process (e.g. institutional review board approval, letter of agreement).