Jan N. Basile

Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND There is no evidence from randomized trials to support a strategy of lowering systolic blood pressure below 135 to 140 mm Hg in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We investigated whether therapy targeting normal systolic pressure (i.e., <120 mm Hg) reduces major cardiovascular events in participants with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events. METHODS A total of 4733 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to intensive therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, or standard therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 140 mm Hg. The primary composite outcome was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The mean follow-up was 4.7 years. RESULTS After 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 119.3 mm Hg in the intensive-therapy group and 133.5 mm Hg in the standard-therapy group. The annual rate of the primary outcome was 1.87% in the intensive-therapy group and 2.09% in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio with intensive therapy, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.06; P=0.20). The annual rates of death from any cause were 1.28% and 1.19% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.35; P=0.55). The annual rates of stroke, a prespecified secondary outcome, were 0.32% and 0.53% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.89; P=0.01). Serious adverse events attributed to antihypertensive treatment occurred in 77 of the 2362 participants in the intensive-therapy group (3.3%) and 30 of the 2371 participants in the standard-therapy group (1.3%) (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.)

Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial

BACKGROUND Hyperglycaemia is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular complications in people with type 2 diabetes. We investigated whether reduction of blood glucose concentration decreases the rate of microvascular complications in people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS ACCORD was a parallel-group, randomised trial done in 77 clinical sites in North America. People with diabetes, high HbA(1c) concentrations (>7.5%), and cardiovascular disease (or >or=2 cardiovascular risk factors) were randomly assigned by central randomisation to intensive (target haemoglobin A(1c) [HbA(1c)] of <6.0%) or standard (7.0-7.9%) glycaemic therapy. In this analysis, the prespecified composite outcomes were: dialysis or renal transplantation, high serum creatinine (>291.7 micromol/L), or retinal photocoagulation or vitrectomy (first composite outcome); or peripheral neuropathy plus the first composite outcome (second composite outcome). 13 prespecified secondary measures of kidney, eye, and peripheral nerve function were also assessed. Investigators and participants were aware of treatment group assignment. Analysis was done for all patients who were assessed for microvascular outcomes, on the basis of treatment assignment, irrespective of treatments received or compliance to therapies. ACCORD is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00000620. FINDINGS 10 251 patients were randomly assigned, 5128 to the intensive glycaemia control group and 5123 to standard group. Intensive therapy was stopped before study end because of higher mortality in that group, and patients were transitioned to standard therapy. At transition, the first composite outcome was recorded in 443 of 5107 patients in the intensive group versus 444 of 5108 in the standard group (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88-1.14; p=1.00), and the second composite outcome was noted in 1591 of 5107 versus 1659 of 5108 (0.96, 0.89-1.02; p=0.19). Results were similar at study end (first composite outcome 556 of 5119 vs 586 of 5115 [HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85-1.07, p=0.42]; and second 1956 of 5119 vs 2046 of 5115, respectively [0.95, 0.89-1.01, p=0.12]). Intensive therapy did not reduce the risk of advanced measures of microvascular outcomes, but delayed the onset of albuminuria and some measures of eye complications and neuropathy. Seven secondary measures at study end favoured intensive therapy (p<0.05). INTERPRETATION Microvascular benefits of intensive therapy should be weighed against the increase in total and cardiovascular disease-related mortality, increased weight gain, and high risk for severe hypoglycaemia. FUNDING US National Institutes of Health; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institute on Aging; National Eye Institute; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and General Clinical Research Centers.

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.

Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)

Diuretics and &bgr;-blockers have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in people with hypertension in long-term clinical trials. No study has compared newer more costly antihypertensive agents (calcium antagonists, ACE inhibitors, and &agr;-adrenergic blockers) with diuretics for reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease in an ethnically diverse group of middle-aged and elderly hypertensive patients. The study is a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial designed to determine whether the incidence of the primary outcome, fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction, differs between treatment initiation with a diuretic versus each of 3 other antihypertensive drugs. Men and women aged ≥55 years with at least 1 other cardiovascular disease risk factor were randomly assigned to chlorthalidone (12.5 to 25 mg/d), amlodipine (2.5 to 10 mg/d), lisinopril (10 to 40 mg/d), or doxazosin (2 to 8 mg/d) for planned follow-up of 4 to 8 years. This report describes the baseline characteristics of the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) participants. A total of 42 448 participants were randomized from 625 sites in the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. The mean age was 67 years, with 35% aged ≥70 years. Among those randomized, 36% were black, 19% were Hispanic, and 47% were women. The sample includes a high proportion of people with diabetes (36%), patients with existing cardiovascular disease (47%), and smokers (22%). There were no important differences between the randomized treatment groups at baseline. ALLHAT will add greatly to our understanding of the management of hypertension by providing an answer to the following question: are newer antihypertensive agents similar, superior, or inferior to traditional treatment with diuretics?

Clinical Outcomes by Race in Hypertensive Patients With and Without the Metabolic Syndrome: Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)

BACKGROUND Antihypertensive drugs with favorable metabolic effects are advocated for first-line therapy in hypertensive patients with metabolic/cardiometabolic syndrome (MetS). We compared outcomes by race in hypertensive individuals with and without MetS treated with a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besylate), an alpha-blocker (doxazosin mesylate), or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril). METHODS A subgroup analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a randomized, double-blind hypertension treatment trial of 42 418 participants. We defined MetS as hypertension plus at least 2 of the following: fasting serum glucose level of at least 100 mg/dL, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of at least 30, fasting triglyceride levels of at least 150 mg/dL, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of less than 40 mg/dL in men or less than 50 mg/dL in women. RESULTS Significantly higher rates of heart failure were consistent across all treatment comparisons in those with MetS. Relative risks (RRs) were 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.90), 1.49 (1.17-1.90), and 1.88 (1.42-2.47) in black participants and 1.25 (1.06-1.47), 1.20 (1.01-1.41), and 1.82 (1.51-2.19) in nonblack participants for amlodipine, lisinopril, and doxazosin comparisons with chlorthalidone, respectively. Higher rates for combined cardiovascular disease were observed with lisinopril-chlorthalidone (RRs, 1.24 [1.09-1.40] and 1.10 [1.02-1.19], respectively) and doxazosin-chlorthalidone comparisons (RRs, 1.37 [1.19-1.58] and 1.18 [1.08-1.30], respectively) in black and nonblack participants with MetS. Higher rates of stroke were seen in black participants only (RR, 1.37 [1.07-1.76] for the lisinopril-chlorthalidone comparison, and RR, 1.49 [1.09-2.03] for the doxazosin-chlorthalidone comparison). Black patients with MetS also had higher rates of end-stage renal disease (RR, 1.70 [1.13-2.55]) with lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone. CONCLUSIONS The ALLHAT findings fail to support the preference for calcium channel blockers, alpha-blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors compared with thiazide-type diuretics in patients with the MetS, despite their more favorable metabolic profiles. This was particularly true for black participants.

Metabolic and Clinical Outcomes in Nondiabetic Individuals With the Metabolic Syndrome Assigned to Chlorthalidone, Amlodipine, or Lisinopril as Initial Treatment for Hypertension: A report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)

OBJECTIVE—Optimal initial antihypertensive drug therapy in people with the metabolic syndrome is unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We conducted a subgroup analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) to compare metabolic, cardiovascular, and renal outcomes in individuals assigned to initial hypertension treatment with a thiazide-like diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (CCB; amlodipine), or an ACE inhibitor (lisinopril) in nondiabetic individuals with or without metabolic syndrome. RESULTS—In participants with metabolic syndrome, at 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes (fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dl) was 17.1% for chlorthalidone, 16.0% for amlodipine (P = 0.49, chlorthalidone vs. amlodipine) and 12.6% for lisinopril (P < 0.05, lisinopril vs. chlorthalidone). For those without metabolic syndrome, the rate of newly diagnosed diabetes was 7.7% for chlorthalidone, 4.2% for amlodipine, and 4.7% for lisinopril (P < 0.05 for both comparisons). There were no differences in relative risks (RRs) for outcomes with amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone in those with metabolic syndrome; in those without metabolic syndrome, there was a higher risk for heart failure (RR 1.55 [95% CI 1.25–1.35]). In comparison with lisinopril, chlorthalidone was superior in those with metabolic syndrome with respect to heart failure (1.31 [1.04–1.64]) and combined cardiovascular disease (CVD) (1.19 [1.07–1.32]). No significant treatment group–metabolic syndrome interaction was noted. CONCLUSIONS—Despite a less favorable metabolic profile, thiazide-like diuretic initial therapy for hypertension offers similar, and in some instances possibly superior, CVD outcomes in older hypertensive adults with metabolic syndrome, as compared with treatment with CCBs and ACE inhibitors.

2011 Recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout and hyperuricemia.

Abstract Gout is a major health problem in the United States; it affects 8.3 million people, which is approximately 4% of the adult population. Gout is most often diagnosed and managed in primary care physician practices. Primary care physicians have a significant opportunity to diagnose and manage patients with gout and improve patient outcomes. Following publication of the 2006 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) gout guidelines, significant evidence on gout has accumulated and new treatments for patients with gout have become available. It is the objective of these 2011 recommendations for the diagnosis and management of gout and hyperuricemia to update the 2006 EULAR guidelines, paying special attention to the needs of primary care physicians, who manage most patients with gout. The revised 2011 recommendations are based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach as an evidence–based strategy for rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendation in clinical practice. A total of 26 key recommendations for diagnosis (n = 10) and management (n = 16) were evaluated. Presence of tophus (proven or suspected) and response to colchicine had the highest clinical diagnostic value (likelihood ratio [LR], 15.56 [95% CI, 2.11–114.71] and LR, 4.33 [95% CI, 1.16–16.16], respectively). The key aspect of effective management of an acute gout attack is initiation of treatment within hours of onset of first symptoms. Low–dose colchicine is better tolerated than and is as effective as high–dose colchicine (number needed to treat [NNT], 5 [95% CI, 3–13] and NNT, 6 [95% CI, 3–72], respectively). For urate–lowering therapy, allopurinol in combination with probenecid was shown to be more effective than either agent alone (effect size [ES], 5.51 for combination; ES, 4.46 for probenecid; and ES, 2.80 for allopurinol). Febuxostat, also a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, has a slightly different mechanism of action and can be prescribed at unchanged doses for patients with mild–to–moderate renal or hepatic impairment. Febuxostat 40 mg versus 80 mg (NNT, 6 [95% CI, 4–11]) and 120 mg (NNT, 6 [95% CI, 3–26]) both demonstrated long–term efficacy. The target of urate–lowering therapy should be a serum uric acid level of # 6 mg∕dL. For patients with refractory and tophaceous gout, intravenous pegloticase is a new treatment option.

Blood Pressure Control by Drug Group in the Antihypertensive and Lipid‐Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)

Blood pressure (BP) control rates and number of antihypertensive medications were compared (average follow‐up, 4.9 years) by randomized groups: chlorthalidone, 12.5–25 mg/d (n=15,255), amlodipine 2.5–10 mg/d (n=9048), or lisinopril 10–40 mg/d (n=9054) in a randomized double‐blind hypertension trial. Participants were hypertensives aged 55 or older with additional cardiovascular risk factor(s), recruited from 623 centers. Additional agents from other classes were added as needed to achieve BP control. BP was reduced from 145/83 mm Hg (27% control) to 134/76 mm Hg (chlorthalidone, 68% control), 135/75 mm Hg (amlodipine, 66% control), and 136/76 mm Hg (lisinopril, 61% control) by 5 years; the mean number of drugs prescribed was 1.9, 2.0, and 2.1, respectively. Only 28% (chlorthalidone), 24% (amlodipine), and 24% (lisinopril) were controlled on monotherapy. BP control was achieved in the majority of each randomized group—a greater proportion with chlorthalidone. Over time, providers and patients should expect multidrug therapy to achieve BP <140/90 mm Hg in a majority of patients.

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)

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.

Metabolic and Clinical Outcomes in Non-Diabetic Individuals with the Metabolic Syndrome Assigned to Chlorthalidone, Amlodipine, or Lisinopril as Initial Treatment for Hypertension: A Report from the ALLHAT Study

OBJECTIVE—Optimal initial antihypertensive drug therapy in people with the metabolic syndrome is unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We conducted a subgroup analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) to compare metabolic, cardiovascular, and renal outcomes in individuals assigned to initial hypertension treatment with a thiazide-like diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (CCB; amlodipine), or an ACE inhibitor (lisinopril) in nondiabetic individuals with or without metabolic syndrome. RESULTS—In participants with metabolic syndrome, at 4 years of follow-up, the incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes (fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dl) was 17.1% for chlorthalidone, 16.0% for amlodipine (P = 0.49, chlorthalidone vs. amlodipine) and 12.6% for lisinopril (P < 0.05, lisinopril vs. chlorthalidone). For those without metabolic syndrome, the rate of newly diagnosed diabetes was 7.7% for chlorthalidone, 4.2% for amlodipine, and 4.7% for lisinopril (P < 0.05 for both comparisons). There were no differences in relative risks (RRs) for outcomes with amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone in those with metabolic syndrome; in those without metabolic syndrome, there was a higher risk for heart failure (RR 1.55 [95% CI 1.25–1.35]). In comparison with lisinopril, chlorthalidone was superior in those with metabolic syndrome with respect to heart failure (1.31 [1.04–1.64]) and combined cardiovascular disease (CVD) (1.19 [1.07–1.32]). No significant treatment group–metabolic syndrome interaction was noted. CONCLUSIONS—Despite a less favorable metabolic profile, thiazide-like diuretic initial therapy for hypertension offers similar, and in some instances possibly superior, CVD outcomes in older hypertensive adults with metabolic syndrome, as compared with treatment with CCBs and ACE inhibitors.