Effect of chlorthalidone, amlodipine, and lisinopril on visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure: results from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Muntner P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4141643 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for hypertension.BackgroundThe 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.MethodsCost-effectiveness analysis was performed using bootstrap resampling to evaluate uncertainty.ResultsOver 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.ConclusionsInitial 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.
| S-EPMC2324142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Low adherence to antihypertensive medication has been hypothesized to increase visit-to-visit variability (VVV) of blood pressure (BP). We assessed the association between antihypertensive medication adherence and VVV of BP in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). VVV of BP was calculated using SD independent of mean, SD, and average real variability across study visits conducted 6 to 28 months after randomization. Participants who reported taking <80% of their antihypertensive medication at ?1 study visits were categorized as nonadherent. Participants were followed up for cardiovascular events and mortality after the assessment of adherence and VVV of BP. SD independent of mean of BP was higher for nonadherent (n=2912) versus adherent (n=16?878) participants; 11.4±4.9 versus 10.5±4.5 for systolic BP; 6.8±2.8 versus 6.2±2.6 for diastolic BP (each P<0.001). SD independent of mean of BP remained higher among nonadherent than among adherent participants after multivariable adjustment (0.8 [95% confidence interval, 0.7-1.0] higher for systolic BP and 0.4 [95% confidence interval, 0.3-0.5] higher for diastolic BP]. SD and average real variability of systolic BP and diastolic BP were also higher among nonadherent than among adherent participants. Adjustment for nonadherence did not explain the association of VVV of BP with higher fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or mortality risk. In conclusion, improving medication adherence may lower VVV of BP. However, VVV of BP is associated with cardiovascular outcomes independent of medication adherence.
| S-EPMC4900942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) was a randomized, double-blind, practice-based, active-control, comparative effectiveness trial in 33,357 high-risk hypertensive participants. ALLHAT compared cardiovascular disease outcomes in participants initially treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), or a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone). We report stroke outcomes in 1517 participants in-trial and 1596 additional participants during post-trial passive surveillance, for a total follow-up of 8-13 years. Stroke rates were higher with lisinopril (6-year rate/100 = 6.4) than with chlorthalidone (5.8) or amlodipine (5.5) in-trial but not including post-trial (10-year rates/100 = 13.2 [chlorthalidone], 13.1[amlodipine], and 13.7 [lisinopril]). In-trial differences were driven by race (race-by-lisinopril/chlorthalidone interaction P = .005, race-by-amlodipine/lisinopril interaction P = .012) and gender (gender-by-lisinopril/amlodipine interaction P = .041), separately. No treatment differences overall, or by race or gender, were detected over the 10-year period. No differences appeared among treatment groups in adjusted risk of all-cause mortality including post-trial for participants with nonfatal in-trial strokes. Among Blacks and women, lisinopril was less effective in preventing stroke in-trial than either chlorthalidone or amlodipine, even after adjusting for differences in systolic blood pressure. These differences abated by the end of the post-trial period.
| S-EPMC4254528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It has been hypothesized that high visit-to-visit variability (VVV) of systolic blood pressure (SBP) may be the result of poor antihypertensive medication adherence. The authors studied this association using data from 1391 individuals taking antihypertensive medication selected from a large managed care organization. The 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, administered during 3 annual surveys, captured self-report adherence, with scores<6, 6 to <8, and 8 representing low, medium. and high adherence, respectively. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) for SD of SBP across study visits was 12.9 (4.4), 13.5 (4.8), and 14.1 (4.5) mm Hg in participants with high, medium, and low self-reported adherence, respectively. After multivariable adjustment and compared with those with high self-report adherence, SD of SBP was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.13-1.07) and 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 0.29-1.87) mm Hg higher among participants with medium and low self-report adherence, respectively. Results were consistent when pharmacy fill was used to define adherence. These data suggest that low antihypertensive medication adherence explains only a small proportion of VVV of SBP.
| S-EPMC3659162 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3261592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) predicts cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients. We analyzed baseline/follow-up electrocardiographies in 26,376 Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial participants randomized to amlodipine (A), lisinopril (L), or chlorthalidone (C). Prevalent/incident LVH was examined using continuous and categorical classifications of Cornell voltage. At 2 and 4 years, prevalence of LVH in the C group (5.57%; 6.14%) was not statistically different from A group (2 years: 5.47%; P = .806, 4 years: 6.54%; P = .857) or L group (2 years: 5.64%; P = .857, 4 years: 6.50%; P = .430). Incident LVH followed similarly, with no difference at 2 years for C (2.99%) compared to A (2.57%; P = .173) or L (3.16%; P = .605) and at 4 years (C = 3.52%, A = 3.29%, L = 3.71%; P = .521 C vs. A, P = .618 C vs. L). Mean Cornell voltage decreased comparably across treatment groups (? baseline, 2 years = +3 to -27 ?V, analysis of variance P = .8612; 4 years = +10 to -17 ?V, analysis of variance P = .9692). We conclude that risk reductions associated with C treatment in secondary end points of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial cannot be attributed to differential improvements in electrocardiography LVH.
| S-EPMC5161112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesGout is a common complication of blood pressure management and a frequently cited cause of medication nonadherence. Little trial evidence exists to inform antihypertensive selection with regard to gout risk.MethodsThe Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) was a randomized clinical trial on the effects of first-step hypertension therapy with amlodipine, chlorthalidone, or lisinopril on fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction (1994-2002). Trial participants were linked to CMS and VA gout claims (ICD9 274.XX). We determined the effect of drug assignment on gout with Cox regression models. We also determined the adjusted association of self-reported atenolol use (ascertained at the 1-month visit for indications other than hypertension) with gout.ResultsClaims were linked to 23 964 participants (mean age 69.8 ± 6.8 years, 45% women, 31% black). Atenolol use was reported by 928 participants at the 1-month visit. Over a mean follow-up of 4.9 years, we documented 597 gout claims. Amlodipine reduced the risk of gout by 37% (hazard ratio 0.63; 95% CI 0.51--0.78) compared with chlorthalidone and by 26% (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.58--0.94) compared with lisinopril. Lisinopril nonsignificantly lowered gout risk compared with chlorthalidone (hazard ratio 0.85; 95% CI 0.70--1.03). Atenolol use was not associated with gout risk (adjusted hazard ratio 1.18; 95% CI 0.78--1.80). Gout risk reduction was primarily observed after 1 year of follow-up.ConclusionAmlodipine lowered long-term gout risk compared with lisinopril or chlorthalidone. This finding may be useful in cases where gout risk is a principal concern among patients being treated for hypertension.This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, number: NCT00000542.
| S-EPMC7244334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine whether an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril) or calcium channel blocker (amlodipine) is superior to a diuretic (chlorthalidone) in reducing cardiovascular disease incidence in sex subgroups, we carried out a prespecified subgroup analysis of 15 638 women and 17 719 men in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Total follow-up (active treatment + passive surveillance using national administrative databases to ascertain deaths and hospitalizations) was 8 to 13 years. The primary outcome was fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, stroke, combined cardiovascular disease (coronary heart disease death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, angina, coronary revascularization, heart failure [HF], or peripheral vascular disease), and end-stage renal disease. In-trial rates of HF, stroke, and combined cardiovascular disease were significantly higher for lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone, and rates of HF were significantly higher for amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone in both men and women. There were no significant treatment sex interactions. These findings did not persist through the extension period with the exception of the HF result for amlodipine versus chlorthalidone, which did not differ significantly by sex. For both women and men, rates were not lower in the amlodipine or lisinopril groups than in the chlorthalidone group for either the primary coronary heart disease outcome or any other cardiovascular disease outcome, and chlorthalidone-based treatment resulted in the lowest risk of HF. Neither lisinopril nor amlodipine is superior to chlorthalidone for initial treatment of hypertension in either women or men. Clinical Trial Registration- clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT00000542.
| S-EPMC4114223 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4690772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveLarge systolic blood pressure (SBP) variability has been proposed as a novel risk factor for dementia above and beyond SBP levels, but the underlying neuropathology is largely unknown. We investigated the relationship among visit-to-visit SBP variability, cognitive deterioration, and underlying neuropathologic changes.MethodsWe used longitudinal data (between 2005 and 2019) from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center. A total of 13,284 dementia-free participants ≥50 years of age were followed up over a median of 5.0 (interquartile range 3.1-7.6) years. Neuropathology data were available in 1,400 autopsied participants. Visit-to-visit SBP variability was quantified from repeated annual SBP measurements. Cognitive deterioration was defined as conversion from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia or from MCI to dementia.ResultsLarger visit-to-visit SBP variability was associated with cognitive deterioration (adjusted odds ratio comparing extreme quintiles 2.64, 95% confidence interval 2.29-3.04, p < 0.001). It was also associated with a higher burden of vascular pathology (including microinfarcts, white matter lesions, atherosclerosis of the circle of Willis, and arteriolosclerosis) and with neurofibrillary tangle pathology assessed by Braak staging (all p < 0.05). The association with cognitive deterioration and vascular pathology appeared stronger among those with normal cognition vs those with MCI at baseline. These findings were observed after adjustment for age, sex, mean SBP, and other confounding variables. Similar results were observed for diastolic blood pressure variability.ConclusionLarger visit-to-visit SBP variability was associated with cognitive deterioration. It was also associated with cerebrovascular pathology and neurofibrillary tangles. These results suggest the intertwined role of vascular and Alzheimer disease pathology in the etiology of dementia.
| S-EPMC8205457 | biostudies-literature