Dataset Information

Effect of amlodipine on cardiovascular events in hypertensive haemodialysis patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hypertensive haemodialysis patients may be at a high risk for cardiovascular events. This study was undertaken to ascertain whether the calcium channel blocker amlodipine reduces mortality and cardiovascular events in these high-risk patients.

Methods

We evaluated the effects of amlodipine on cardiovascular events in 251 hypertensive haemodialysis patients in an investigator-designed, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. One hundred and twenty-three patients were randomly assigned to amlodipine (10 mg once daily) and 128 to placebo. The primary endpoint was mortality from any cause. The secondary endpoint was a composite variable consisting of mortality from any cause or cardiovascular event. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00124969).

Results

The median age of patients was 61 years (25% percentile - 75% percentile, 47-69), and the median follow-up was 19 months (8-30). Fifteen (12%) of the 123 patients assigned to amlodipine and 22 (17%) of the 128 patients assigned to placebo had a primary endpoint [hazard ratio 0.65 (95% CI 0.34-1.23); P = 0.19]. Nineteen (15%) of the 123 haemodialysis patients assigned to amlodipine and 32 (25%) of the 128 haemodialysis patients assigned to placebo reached the secondary composite endpoint [hazard ratio 0.53 (95% CI 0.31-0.93); P = 0.03].

Conclusion

Amlodipine safely reduces systolic blood pressure and it may have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive haemodialysis patients.

SUBMITTER: Tepel M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2568006 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of a combination of a calcium channel blocker (CCB) plus chlorthalidone (diuretic) versus a CCB plus an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in patients not responding to CCB monotherapy has not been evaluated previously. We plan to compare the efficacy and safety of S-amlodipine (CCB) plus chlorthalidone versus S-amlodipine plus telmisartan (ARB) combinations among hypertension patients unresponsive to amlodipine monotherapy.Methods/designThis study is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel, non-inferiority phase 4 study. Hypertension patients who have been treated with amlodipine (5 mg) or S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) monotherapy for ≥2 weeks and whose mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) is greater than 90 mmHg will be randomized to either S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) plus chlorthalidone (25 mg) or S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) plus telmisartan (40 mg) therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint is mean sitting DBP change after 12 weeks of treatment. The study objective is to prove the non-inferiority of the former combination (test drug) as compared to the latter one (control) with a non-inferiority margin of 3 mmHg in mean DBP change. The secondary endpoints are 6-week DBP change, 6- and 12-week sitting systolic BP (SBP) change, and the attainment of the target BP (SBP < 140 mmHg or DBP < 90 mmHg). Urine albumin, albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR), pulse wave velocity, central BP, 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, and body fluid composition analysis will be performed at each hospital's discretion. The sample size was estimated as 170 in total with 1:1 randomization.DiscussionThis is the first study comparing the efficacy of a CCB plus chlorthalidone versus a CCB plus an ARB in patients who are not responding to CCB single therapy. The study result will help clinicians to choose between chlorthalidone and telmisartan in CCB-unresponsive patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03226340. Registered on 2 December 2015.

Project description:Introductionβ-Blockers are a heterogenous class of drugs that are no longer recommended for initial antihypertension monotherapy due to unfavorable long-term cardiovascular events observed with non-vasodilatory β-blockers. However, the comparative cardiovascular event risk between the vasodilatory β1-selective antagonist/β3 agonist nebivolol and non-vasodilatory β1-blockers, atenolol and metoprolol, is unknown.MethodsIncident nebivolol, atenolol, or metoprolol monotherapy users with hypertension were identified using US claims data (2007-2014). The first β-blocker claim on/after 1/1/2008 defined the index drug/date. Hypertensive patients without pre-index cardiovascular history were followed until index drug discontinuation (> 90 day supply gap), use of other β-blockers, or end of continuous plan enrollment. Patients were pair-wise propensity score-matched using logistic regression, adjusted for baseline demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, comorbid chronic pulmonary disease, rheumatic disease, renal disease, and diabetes, and use of other antihypertensive drugs during baseline. Time to first hospital claim for a cardiovascular event was assessed via Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for the variables above.ResultsInclusion criteria were met by 81,402 patients (n = 27,134 in each matched treatment cohort), with no between-cohort differences in baseline characteristics, comorbid conditions, or average follow-up duration. Atenolol and metoprolol cohorts had greater risk of hospitalization for a composite event (myocardial infarction, angina, congestive heart failure, stroke) than nebivolol users (adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval] atenolol: 1.68 [1.29, 2.17]; metoprolol: 2.05 [1.59, 2.63]; P < 0.001, both). Risks of most individual cardiovascular events were also lower with nebivolol, including myocardial infarction and angina versus atenolol, and myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and angina versus metoprolol (P < 0.05, all).ConclusionsNebivolol was associated with significantly lower risk of hospitalization due to composite cardiovascular events than atenolol or metoprolol in this large retrospective cohort study of monotherapy with three different β1-selective blockers in hypertensive patients.FundingAllergan plc, Madison, NJ, USA.