Tsushung Hua

Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial

BACKGROUNDnThe Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test the hypothesis that for the same blood-pressure control, valsartan would reduce cardiac morbidity and mortality more than amlodipine in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk.nnnMETHODSn15?245 patients, aged 50 years or older with treated or untreated hypertension and high risk of cardiac events participated in a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of therapy based on valsartan or amlodipine. Duration of treatment was event-driven and the trial lasted until at least 1450 patients had reached a primary endpoint, defined as a composite of cardiac mortality and morbidity. Patients from 31 countries were followed up for a mean of 4.2 years.nnnFINDINGSnBlood pressure was reduced by both treatments, but the effects of the amlodipine-based regimen were more pronounced, especially in the early period (blood pressure 4.0/2.1 mm Hg lower in amlodipine than valsartan group after 1 month; 1.5/1.3 mm Hg after 1 year; p<0.001 between groups). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 810 patients in the valsartan group (10.6%, 25.5 per 1000 patient-years) and 789 in the amlodipine group (10.4%, 24.7 per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.15, p=0.49).nnnINTERPRETATIONnThe main outcome of cardiac disease did not differ between the treatment groups. Unequal reductions in blood pressure might account for differences between the groups in cause-specific outcomes. The findings emphasise the importance of prompt blood-pressure control in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk.

Blood pressure dependent and independent effects of antihypertensive treatment on clinical events in the VALUE Trial

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test whether, for the same achieved blood pressures, regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine would have differing effects on cardiovascular endpoints in high risk hypertension. But inequalities in blood pressure, favouring amlodipine, throughout the multiyear trial precluded comparison of outcomes. A technique of serial median matching, applied at 6 months when treatment adjustments intended to achieve control of blood pressure were complete, created 5006 valsartan-amlodipine patient pairs matched exactly for systolic blood pressure, age, sex, and the presence or absence of previous coronary disease, stroke, or diabetes. Subsequent combined cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality were almost identical in the two cohorts, but admission to hospital for heart failure was significantly lower with valsartan. Reaching blood pressure control (systolic <140 mm Hg) by 6 months, independent of drug type, was associated with significant benefits for subsequent major outcomes; the blood pressure response after just 1 month of treatment predicted events and survival.

Effects of valsartan compared to amlodipine on preventing type 2 diabetes in high-risk hypertensive patients: The VALUE trial

Context Type 2 diabetes is emerging as a major health problem, which tends to cluster with hypertension in individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Objective To test for the first time the hypothesis that treatment of hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk with the angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) valsartan prevents new-onset type 2 diabetes compared with the metabolically neutral calcium-channel antagonist (CCA) amlodipine. Design Pre-specified analysis in the VALUE trial. Follow-up averaged 4.2 years. The risk of developing new diabetes was calculated as an odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for different definitions of diabetes. Patients A sample of 9995 high-risk, non-diabetic hypertensive patients. Interventions Valsartan or amlodipine with or without add-on medication [hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and other add-ons, excluding other ARBs, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCAs]. Main outcome measure New diabetes defined as an adverse event, new blood-glucose-lowering drugs and/or fasting glucose > 7.0 mmol/l. Results New diabetes was reported in 580 (11.5%) patients on valsartan and in 718 (14.5%) patients on amlodipine (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69–0.87, P < 0.0001). Using stricter criteria (without adverse event reports) new diabetes was detected in 495 (9.8%) patients on valsartan and in 586 (11.8%) on amlodipine (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72–0.93, P = 0.0015). Conclusion Compared with amlodipine, valsartan reduces the risk of developing diabetes mellitus in high-risk hypertensive patients.

Outcomes in subgroups of hypertensive patients treated with regimens based on valsartan and amlodipine: An analysis of findings from the VALUE trial.

Background In the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial the primary outcome (cardiac morbidity and mortality) did not differ between valsartan and amlodipine-based treatment groups, although systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure reductions were significantly more pronounced with amlodipine. Stroke incidence was non-significantly, and myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the amlodipine-based regimen, whereas cardiac failure was non-significantly lower on valsartan. Objectives The study protocol specified additional analyses of the primary endpoint according to: sex; age; race; geographical region; smoking status; type 2 diabetes; total cholesterol; left ventricular hypertrophy; proteinuria; serum creatinine; a history of coronary heart disease; a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack; and a history of peripheral artery disease. Additional subgroups were isolated systolic hypertension and classes of antihypertensive agents used immediately before randomization. Methods The 15 245 hypertensive patients participating in VALUE were divided into subgroups according to baseline characteristics. Treatment by subgroup interaction analyses were carried out by a Cox proportional hazard model. Within each subgroup, treatment effects were assessed by hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results For cardiac mortality and morbidity, the only significant subgroup by treatment interaction was of sex (P = 0.016), with the hazard ratio indicating a relative excess of cardiac events with valsartan treatment in women but not in men, but SBP differences in favour of amlodipine were distinctly greater in women. No other subgroup showed a significant difference in the composite cardiac outcome between valsartan and amlodipine-based treatments. For secondary endpoints, a sex-related significant interaction was found for heart failure (P < 0.0001), with men but not women having a lower incidence of heart failure with valsartan. Conclusion As in the whole VALUE cohort, in no subgroup of patients were there differences in the incidence of the composite cardiac endpoint with valsartan and amlodipine-based treatments, despite a greater blood pressure decrease in the amlodipine group. The only exception was sex, in which the amlodipine-based regimen was more effective than valsartan in women, but not in men, whereas the valsartan regimen was more effective in preventing cardiac failure in men than in women.

Predictors of new-onset diabetes mellitus in hypertensive patients: the VALUE trial

Diabetes mellitus often develops in patients with hypertension. We investigated predictors of diabetes mellitus development in hypertensives at risk of developing the disease in the VALUE trial population. Among the 9995 non-diabetic hypertensive patients at baseline, 1298 patients developed diabetes mellitus during the average follow-up of 4.2 years. New-onset diabetes mellitus was defined from adverse event reports, information about new antidiabetic medication and/or a fasting glucose ⩾7.0u2009mmolu2009l−1 at the end of trial. Twenty-five potential baseline predictors of new-onset diabetes mellitus were analysed by univariate logistic regression and 14 of 25 predictors were found to be statistically significant with a P-value <0.05. The predictors were in order of decreasing significance; glucose, body mass index (BMI), age, uric acid, non-Caucasian race, haemoglobin, heart rate, randomized study treatment, history of coronary heart disease (CHD), gender, total cholesterol, proteinuria, potassium and creatinine. Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analyses were used and potential baseline predictors of new-onset diabetes mellitus were considered significant by four different models (P-value <0.001). The final multivariate model selected included all patients, but not treatment group as a potential predictor, and the six significant predictors identified from this model were glucose, BMI, non-Caucasian race, age, heart rate and history of CHD. In conclusion, glucose and BMI were the most important predictors of new-onset diabetes mellitus in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk, and easily accessible clinical characteristics strongly predict patients at risk of developing diabetes mellitus.

Comparison of Benazepril Plus Amlodipine or Hydrochlorothiazide in High-Risk Patients With Hypertension and Coronary Artery Disease

Combination therapy with benazepril 40 mg and amlodipine 10 mg (B+A) has been shown to be more effective than benazepril 40 mg and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg (B+H) in reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in high-risk patients with stage 2 hypertension with similar blood pressure reductions. In the present post hoc analysis, we evaluated whether B+A is more effective than B+H for reducing CV events in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD) at baseline in a subgroup analysis of the Avoiding Cardiovascular events through COMbination therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) study. The main trial randomized 11,506 patients. Of those, 5,744 received B+A and 5,762 received B+H. Of the 11,506 patients, 5,314 (46%) were classified as having CAD at baseline. The mean patient follow-up period was 35.7 months for the B+A group and 35.6 months for the B+H group. The primary end point was the interval to the first event of composite CV morbidity and mortality. At baseline, significant differences were present between the 5,314 with CAD and the 6,192 without CAD. The patients with CAD had a lower systolic blood pressure and heart rate, a lower incidence of diabetes, and greater incidence of dyslipidemia. However, no baseline differences were found between the randomized B+A and B+H groups. In the patients with CAD, an 18% reduction occurred in the hazard ratio for CV events (primary end point) with B+A versus B+H (pxa0= 0.0016). In a prespecified secondary analysis of the composite end point, including only CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, the hazard ratio in the patients with CAD was reduced by 25% (pxa0= 0.0033) in the B+A group compared with the B+H group. B+A was more effective than B+H at comparable blood pressure reductions for reducing CV events in patients, regardless of the presence of CAD. In conclusion, our findings suggest that the combination of B+A should be preferentially used for older patients with high-risk, stage 2 hypertension.