Dataset Information

Progression of kidney disease in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin versus usual care: a report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Dyslipidemia is common in patients with chronic kidney disease. The role of statin therapy in the progression of kidney disease is unclear.

Study design

Prospective randomized clinical trial, post hoc analyses.

Setting & participants

10,060 participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (lipid-lowering component) stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): less than 60, 60 to 89, and 90 or greater mL/min/1.73 m(2). Mean follow-up was 4.8 years.

Intervention

Randomized; pravastatin, 40 mg/d, or usual care.

Outcomes & measurements

Total, high-density lipoprotein, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; end-stage renal disease (ESRD), eGFR.

Results

Through year 6, total cholesterol levels decreased in the pravastatin (-20.7%) and usual-care groups (-11.2%). No significant differences were seen between groups for rates of ESRD (1.36 v 1.45/100 patient-years; P = 0.9), composite end points of ESRD and 50% or 25% decrease in eGFR, or rate of change in eGFR. Findings were consistent across eGFR strata. In patients with eGFR of 90 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or greater, the pravastatin arm tended to have a higher eGFR.

Limitations

Proteinuria data unavailable, post hoc analyses, unconfirmed validity of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation in normal eGFR range, statin drop-in rate in usual-care group with small cholesterol differential between groups.

Conclusions

In hypertensive patients with moderate dyslipidemia and decreased eGFR, pravastatin was not superior to usual care in preventing clinical renal outcomes. This was consistent across the strata of baseline eGFR. However, benefit from statin therapy may depend on the degree of the cholesterol level decrease achieved.

SUBMITTER: Rahman M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2897819 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:Concerns exist that diuretic-induced changes in serum potassium may have adverse effects in hypertensive patients. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial, a large practice-based clinical trial, made it possible to examine consequences of observed changes in potassium during care in conventional practice settings. Normokalemic participants randomized to chlorthalidone (C) versus amlodipine or lisinopril as a first-step drug were stratified by year-1 potassium. Postyear-1 outcomes among hypokalemics (potassium, <3.5 mmol/L) and hyperkalemics (potassium, >5.4 mmol/L) were compared with normokalemics (potassium, 3.5-5.4 mmol/L). Year-1 hypokalemia incidence was 6.8%; incidence in C (12.9%) differed from amlodipine (2.1%; P<0.001) and lisinopril (1.0%; P<0.01). Hyperkalemia incidence (2.0%) was greater in lisinopril (3.6%) than in C (1.2%; P<0.01) or amlodipine (1.9%; P<0.01). Coronary heart disease occurred in 8.1% with hypokalemia, 8.0% with normokalemia, and 11.1% with hyperkalemia. Overall, mortality was higher in hypokalemics than in normokalemics (Cox hazard ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.02-1.44]) with statistically significant (interaction, P<0.01) disparity in hazard ratios for the 3 treatment arms (hazard ratios, C=1.21, amlodipine=1.60, lisinopril=3.82). Hyperkalemia was associated with increased risk of combined cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.15-2.18]) without significant treatment interactions. In conventional practice settings, the uncommon appearance of hyperkalemia was associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk. Hypokalemia was associated with increased mortality; however, the statistically significant heterogeneity in hazard ratios across treatment groups strongly suggests that the observed increase in mortality is unrelated to the specific effects of C. Thus, for most patients, concerns about potassium levels should not influence the clinician's decision about initiating hypertension treatment with low-moderate doses of thiazide diuretics (12.5-25.0 mg of C).

Project description:A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter trial assigned 32,804 participants aged 55 years and older with hypertension and ≥ 1 other coronary heart disease risk factors to receive chlorthalidone (n=15,002), amlodipine (n=8898), or lisinopril (n=8904) for 4 to 8 years, when double-blinded therapy was discontinued. Passive surveillance continued for a total follow-up of 8 to 13 years using national administrative databases to ascertain deaths and hospitalizations. During the post-trial period, fatal outcomes and nonfatal outcomes were available for 98% and 65% of participants, respectively, due to lack of access to administrative databases for the remainder. This paper assesses whether mortality and morbidity differences persisted or new differences developed during the extended follow-up. Primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality and secondary outcomes were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and end-stage renal disease. For the post-trial period, data are not available on medications or blood pressure levels. No significant differences (P<.05) appeared in cardiovascular mortality for amlodipine (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.06) or lisinopril (HR, 0.97; CI, 0.90-1.03), each compared with chlorthalidone. The only significant differences in secondary outcomes were for heart failure, which was higher with amlodipine (HR, 1.12; CI, 1.02-1.22), and stroke mortality, which was higher with lisinopril (HR, 1.20; CI, 1.01-1.41), each compared with chlorthalidone. Similar to the previously reported in-trial result, there was a significant treatment-by-race interaction for cardiovascular disease for lisinopril vs chlorthalidone. Black participants had higher risk than non-black participants taking lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone. After accounting for multiple comparisons, none of these results were significant. These findings suggest that neither calcium channel blockers nor angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are superior to diuretics for the long-term prevention of major cardiovascular complications of hypertension.