Effect of ramipril vs amlodipine on renal outcomes in hypertensive nephrosclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. Outcome results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in patients with hypertension and NIDDM. Clinical results of the Verapamil inHypertension and Atherosclerosis Study. VHAS Investigators. Principal results of the Controlled Onset Verapamil Investigation of Cardiovascular End Points (CONVINCE) trial. STOP-Hypertension 2: a prospective intervention trial of "newer" versus "older" treatment alternatives in old patients with hypertension. Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension. The effect of nisoldipine as compared with enalapril on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and hypertension. A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial. Calcium antagonist lacidipine slows down progression of asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis: principal results of the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA), a randomized, double-blind, long-term trial. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. Characteristics of participants at baseline in the Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study (TOMHS). Cardiovascular outcomes in the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. Treatment of isolated systolic hypertension: the SHELL study results. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Rationale and design for the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). ALLHAT Research Group. Morbidity and mortality in patients randomised to double-blind treatment with a long-acting calcium-channel blocker or diuretic in the International Nifedipine GITS study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT). Final outcome results of the Multicenter Isradipine Diuretic Atherosclerosis Study (MIDAS). A randomized controlled trial. Randomised trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and beta-blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) study.
Incidence of end-stage renal disease due to hypertension has increased in recent decades, but the optimal strategy for treatment of hypertension to prevent renal failure is unknown, especially among African Americans.
                To compare the effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (ramipril), a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), and a beta-blocker (metoprolol) on hypertensive renal disease progression.
                Interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, 3 x 2 factorial trial conducted in 1094 African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] of 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) enrolled between February 1995 and September 1998. This report compares the ramipril and amlodipine groups following discontinuation of the amlodipine intervention in September 2000.
                Participants were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine, 5 to 10 mg/d (n = 217), ramipril, 2.5 to 10 mg/d (n = 436), or metoprolol, 50 to 200 mg/d (n = 441), with other agents added to achieve 1 of 2 blood pressure goals.
                The primary outcome measure was the rate of change in GFR; the main secondary outcome was a composite index of the clinical end points of reduction in GFR of more than 50% or 25 mL/min per 1.73 m(2), end-stage renal disease, or death.
                Among participants with a urinary protein to creatinine ratio of >0.22 (corresponding approximately to proteinuria of more than 300 mg/d), the ramipril group had a 36% (2.02 [SE, 0.74] mL/min per 1.73 m(2)/y) slower mean decline in GFR over 3 years (P =.006) and a 48% reduced risk of the clinical end points vs the amlodipine group (95% confidence interval [CI], 20%-66%). In the entire cohort, there was no significant difference in mean GFR decline from baseline to 3 years between treatment groups (P =.38). However, compared with the amlodipine group, after adjustment for baseline covariates the ramipril group had a 38% reduced risk of clinical end points (95% CI, 13%-56%), a 36% slower mean decline in GFR after 3 months (P =.002), and less proteinuria (P<.001).
                Ramipril, compared with amlodipine, retards renal disease progression in patients with hypertensive renal disease and proteinuria and may offer benefit to patients without proteinuria. ACE inhibitors and calcium antagonists may favorably affect serum lipids and glucose metabolism. The primary aim of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) was to compare the effects of fosinopril and amlodipine on serum lipids and diabetes control in NIDDM patients with hypertension. Prospectively defined cardiovascular events were assessed as secondary outcomes.
                Inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of NIDDM and hypertension (systolic blood pressure of > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure of > 90 mmHg). Exclusion criteria included a history of coronary heart disease or stroke, serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl, albuminuria > 40 micrograms/min, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, aspirin, or antihypertensive agents other than beta-blockers or diuretics. A total of 380 hypertensive diabetics were randomly assigned to open-label fosinopril (20 mg/day) or amlodipine (10 mg/day) and followed for up to 3.5 years. If blood pressure was not controlled, the other study drug was added.
                Both treatments were effective in lowering blood pressure. At the end of follow-up, between the two groups there was no significant difference in total serum cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, HbA1c, fasting serum glucose, or plasma insulin. The patients receiving fosinopril had a significantly lower risk of the combined outcome of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalized angina than those receiving amlodipine (14/189 vs. 27/191; hazards ratio = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.26-0.95).
                Fosinopril and amlodipine had similar effects on biochemical measures, but the patients randomized to fosinopril had a significantly lower risk of major vascular events, compared with the patients randomized to amlodipine. The Verapamil in Hypertension and Atherosclerosis Study (VHAS) is a prospective randomized study the objective of which was to compare the long-term effects of verapamil and chlorthalidone on the blood pressure, clinical safety, and the progression/regression of carotid wall lesions in members of a large population of hypertensive patients.
                After a 3-week placebo run-in period, 1414 hypertensive patients [692 men and 722 women, aged 53.2 +/- 7 years, blood pressure 168.9 +/- 10.5/ 102.2 +/- 5.0 mmHg (means +/- SD)] were assigned randomly to be administered either 240 mg sustained-release verapamil (n = 707) or 25 mg chlorthalidone (n = 707) once a day for 2 years. The study design was double blind for the first 6 months and open thereafter. 25-50 mg/day captopril were added to the treatment of non-responding patients; subsequently, patients not responding to combined therapy were switched to any therapy chosen by the treating doctors (free therapy). The blood pressure of the sitting subject, heart rate, and a standard clinical safety profile (electrocardiogram, laboratory tests, adverse events, cardiovascular events, and deaths) were assessed regularly throughout the study.
                After 2 years the systolic and diastolic blood pressures were reduced significantly in members of both treatment groups (by 16.3/16.6% with verapamil and by 16.9/16.2% with chlorthalidone, both by analysis of variance, P < 0.0001). The patients for whom we added captopril treatment constituted 22.6% of the verapamil and 26.2% of the chlorthalidone group; while 11.6 and 12.2% of patients in these groups, respectively, were administered free therapy. Normalization of the diastolic blood pressure (to < or = 90 mmHg or to < or = 95 mmHg with a > or = 10% decrease) was achieved for 69.3% of the verapamil and 66.9% of the chlorthalidone group. A decrease in heart rate (by 5.8%) occurred in members of the verapamil group only. A decrease in total serum cholesterol (from 223.6 to 216.9 mg/dl, P < 0.01) and in the total cholesterol: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (from 4.9 to 4.5, P < 0.01) was noted for the verapamil group only, whereas significantly greater rates of hyperuricemia (plasma urate > 7.0 mg/dl; 10.8 versus 3.9%) and hypokalemia (serum K < 3.5 mmol/l; 24.6 versus 4.4%) were observed for the chlorthalidone group (P < 0.01, versus verapamil for both). Adverse events were reported by 32.5% of patients treated with verapamil and by 33.4% of those treated with chlorthalidone. The most frequent adverse events were constipation in members of the verapamil group (13.7%) and asthenia in members of the chlorthalidone group (8.5%). In total 315 dropped out (153 from the verapamil and 162 from the chlorthalidone group). The occurrence of cardiovascular events was similar for both treatments (42 events for verapamil and 43 for chlorthalidone, NS).
                Similar antihypertensive efficacies, tolerabilities and cardiovascular event rates were observed with verapamil and with chlorthalidone. However, treatment with chlorthalidone was associated with significantly higher incidences of hyperuricemia and hypokalemia than was treatment with verapamil. Hypertensive patients are often given a calcium antagonist to reduce cardiovascular disease risk, but the benefit compared with other drug classes is controversial.
                To determine whether initial therapy with controlled-onset extended-release (COER) verapamil is equivalent to a physician's choice of atenolol or hydrochlorothiazide in preventing cardiovascular disease.
                Double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted at 661 centers in 15 countries. A total of 16 602 participants diagnosed as having hypertension and who had 1 or more additional risk factors for cardiovascular disease were enrolled between September 1996 and December 1998 and followed up until December 31, 2000. After a mean of 3 years of follow-up, the sponsor closed the study before unblinding the results.
                Initially, 8241 participants received 180 mg of COER verapamil and 8361 received either 50 mg of atenolol or 12.5 mg of hydrochlorothiazide. Other drugs (eg, diuretic, beta-blocker, or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) could be added in specified sequence if needed.
                First occurrence of stroke, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease-related death.
                Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were reduced by 13.6 mm Hg and 7.8 mm Hg for participants assigned to the COER verapamil group and by 13.5 and 7.1 mm Hg for partcipants assigned to the atenolol or hydrochlorothiazide group. There were 364 primary cardiovascular disease-related events that occurred in the COER verapamil group vs 365 in atenolol or hydrochlorothiazide group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.18; P =.77). For fatal or nonfatal stroke, the HR was 1.15 (95% CI, 0.90-1.48); for fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.65-1.03); and for cardiovascular disease-related death, 1.09 (95% CI, 0.87-1.37). The HR was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.95-1.16) for any prespecified cardiovascular disease-related event and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.93-1.26) for all-cause mortality. Nonstroke hemorrhage was more common with participants in the COER-verapamil group (n = 118) compared with the atenolol or hydrochlorothiazide group (n = 79) (HR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.16-2.04]; P =.003). More cardiovascular disease-related events occurred between 6 AM and noon in both the COER verapamil (99/277) and atenolol or hydrochlorothiazide (88/274) groups; HR, 1.15 (95% CI, 0.86-1.53).
                The CONVINCE trial did not demonstrate equivalence of a COER verapamil-based antihypertensive regimen compared with a regimen beginning with a diuretic or beta-blocker. When considered in the context of other trials of calcium antagonists, these data indicate that the effectiveness of calcium-channel therapy in reducing cardiovascular disease is similar but not better than diuretic or beta-blocker treatment. It is well established that hypertensive patients benefit from drug treatment of their disorder. In recent years three major out-come studies of antihypertensive treatment in elderly hypertensives have shown substantial benefits, i.e. a reduction in the risk of stroke and other cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. In all these studies beta-blockers and/or diuretics were used in comparison with placebo. Newer therapeutic alternatives have, however, at least theoretically, many advantages which could result in further improvements in prognosis. The initial Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension (STOP-Hypertension 1) was conducted in men and women aged 70-84 years. STOP-Hypertension 2 will evaluate the therapy used in STOP-Hypertension 1 against therapy based on either ACE-inhibitors (enalapril and lisinopril) or on calcium antagonists (isradipine and felodipine), using the PROBE design (Prospective, Randomised, Open, Blinded Endpoint evaluation). The primary aim will be to assess the effect on cardiovascular mortality. Statistical calculations indicate that 6,600 patients, followed for four years will be needed (2p < 0.05, power 90%) to obtain significance if there is a 25% difference between the new and the established therapy. Patients in primary health care (300 centres) will be included if their supine blood pressure is > or = 180/105 mmHg (and/or). Recruitment of patients started in September 1992 and so far more than 100 patients/week have been included. It has recently been reported that the use of calcium-channel blockers for hypertension may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications. Because this issue remains controversial, we studied the incidence of such complications in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hypertension who were randomly assigned to treatment with either the calcium-channel blocker nisoldipine or the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor enalapril as part of a larger study.
                The Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) Trial is a prospective, randomized, blinded trial comparing the effects of moderate control of blood pressure (target diastolic pressure, 80 to 89 mm Hg) with those of intensive control of blood pressure (diastolic pressure, 75 mm Hg) on the incidence and progression of complications of diabetes. The study also compared nisoldipine with enalapril as a first-line antihypertensive agent in terms of the prevention and progression of complications of diabetes. In the current study, we analyzed data on a secondary end point (the incidence of myocardial infarction) in the subgroup of patients in the ABCD Trial who had hypertension.
                Analysis of the 470 patients in the trial who had hypertension (base-line diastolic blood pressure, > or = 90 mm Hg) showed similar control of blood pressure, blood glucose and lipid concentrations, and smoking behavior in the nisoldipine group (237 patients) and the enalapril group (233 patients) throughout five years of follow-up. Using a multiple logistic-regression model with adjustment for cardiac risk factors, we found that nisoldipine was associated with a higher incidence of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarctions (a total of 24) than enalapril (total, 4) (risk ratio, 9.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.7 to 33.8).
                In this population of patients with diabetes and hypertension, we found a significantly higher incidence of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction among those assigned to therapy with the calcium-channel blocker nisoldipine than among those assigned to receive enalapril. Since our findings are based on a secondary end point, they will require confirmation. Despite evidence of efficacy of antihypertensive agents in treating hypertensive patients, safety and efficacy of antihypertensive agents for coronary artery disease (CAD) have been discerned only from subgroup analyses in large trials.
                To compare mortality and morbidity outcomes in patients with hypertension and CAD treated with a calcium antagonist strategy (CAS) or a non-calcium antagonist strategy (NCAS).
                Randomized, open label, blinded end point study of 22 576 hypertensive CAD patients aged 50 years or older, which was conducted September 1997 to February 2003 at 862 sites in 14 countries.
                Patients were randomly assigned to either CAS (verapamil sustained release) or NCAS (atenolol). Strategies specified dose and additional drug regimens. Trandolapril and/or hydrochlorothiazide was administered to achieve blood pressure goals according to guidelines from the sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI) of less than 140 mm Hg (systolic) and less than 90 mm Hg (diastolic); and less than 130 mm Hg (systolic) and less than 85 mm Hg (diastolic) if diabetes or renal impairment was present. Trandolapril was also recommended for patients with heart failure, diabetes, or renal impairment.
                Primary: first occurrence of death (all cause), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; other: cardiovascular death, angina, adverse experiences, hospitalizations, and blood pressure control at 24 months.
                At 24 months, in the CAS group, 6391 patients (81.5%) were taking verapamil sustained release; 4934 (62.9%) were taking trandolapril; and 3430 (43.7%) were taking hydrochlorothiazide. In the NCAS group, 6083 patients (77.5%) were taking atenolol; 4733 (60.3%) were taking hydrochlorothiazide; and 4113 (52.4%) were taking trandolapril. After a follow-up of 61 835 patient-years (mean, 2.7 years per patient), 2269 patients had a primary outcome event with no statistically significant difference between treatment strategies (9.93% in CAS and 10.17% in NCAS; relative risk [RR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.06). Two-year blood pressure control was similar between groups. The JNC VI blood pressure goals were achieved by 65.0% (systolic) and 88.5% (diastolic) of CAS and 64.0% (systolic) and 88.1% (diastolic) of NCAS patients. A total of 71.7% of CAS and 70.7% of NCAS patients achieved a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg.
                The verapamil-trandolapril-based strategy was as clinically effective as the atenolol-hydrochlorothiazide-based strategy in hypertensive CAD patients. Most cardiovascular events associated with hypertension are complications of atherosclerosis. Some antihypertensive agents influence experimental models of atherosclerosis through mechanisms independent of blood pressure lowering.
                The European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) was a randomized, double-blind trial in 2334 patients with hypertension that compared the effects of a 4-year treatment based on either lacidipine or atenolol on an index of carotid atherosclerosis, the mean of the maximum intima-media thicknesses (IMT) in far walls of common carotids and bifurcations (CBM(max)). This index has been shown by epidemiological studies to be predictive of cardiovascular events. A significant (P<0.0001) effect of lacidipine was found compared with atenolol, with a treatment difference in 4-year CBM(max) progression of -0.0227 mm (intention-to-treat population) and -0.0281 mm (completers). The yearly IMT progression rate was 0.0145 mm/y in atenolol-treated and 0.0087 mm/y in lacidipine-treated patients (completers, 40% reduction; P=0.0073). Patients with plaque progression were significantly less common, and patients with plaque regression were significantly more common in the lacidipine group. Clinic blood pressure reductions were identical with both treatments, but 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic blood pressure changes were greater with atenolol (-10/-9 mm Hg) than with lacidipine (-7/-5 mm Hg). No significant difference between treatments was found in any cardiovascular events, although the relative risk for stroke, major cardiovascular events, and mortality showed a trend favoring lacidipine.
                The greater efficacy of lacidipine on carotid IMT progression and number of plaques per patient, despite a smaller ambulatory blood pressure reduction, indicates an antiatherosclerotic action of lacidipine independent of its antihypertensive action. The 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.
                15?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.
                Blood 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).
                The 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. The Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study (TOMHS) is a randomized, double-blind clinical trial currently being conducted to compare the effects of nonpharmacologic therapy alone with those of 1 of 5 active drug regimens combined with nonpharmacologic therapy, for long-term management of patients with mild hypertension. Six classes of drugs were studied: (1) acebutolol (beta blocker), (2) amlodipine (calcium antagonist), (3) chlorthalidone (diuretic), (4) doxazosin (alpha 1 antagonist), (5) enalapril (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) and (6) placebo. All participants received nutritional-hygienic advice to reduce weight and sodium and alcohol intakes and to increase physical activity. End points include blood pressure change, side effects and quality-of-life indices; incidence of electrocardiographic and echocardiographic abnormalities; and incidence of cardiovascular clinical events, including death, among participants receiving drugs as first-step treatment as well as nonpharmacologic treatment compared with incidence among those participants randomized to nonpharmacologic treatment only as the initial step. Patients with diabetes have increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are protective in type 1 diabetes. However, no definitive studies have examined the use of angiotensin-receptor blockers in patients with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. The primary outcomes of the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial were doubling of serum creatinine levels, end-stage renal disease, and death from any cause.
                To compare rates of cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy who received conventional antihypertensive therapy with an angiotensin-receptor blocker (irbesartan) or a calcium-channel blocker (amlodipine), or placebo.
                Randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a median follow-up of 2.6 years. A time event analysis was used.
                209 centers in the Americas, Europe, Israel, and Australasia.
                1715 adults with type 2 diabetic nephropathy and hypertension; serum creatinine levels of 89 micromol/L (1.0 mg/dL) to 266 micromol/L (3.0 mg/dL) in women and 106 micromol/L (1.2 mg/dL) to 266 micromol/L (3.0 mg/dL) in men; and urinary protein excretion rates of at least 900 mg/d.
                Treatment with irbesartan, amlodipine, or placebo.
                Time to cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, strokes, and coronary revascularization.
                The three groups were not statistically different in the composite of cardiovascular events. Among the components of the composite, there was a trend toward a decrease in strokes in patients receiving amlodipine versus those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.22]; P = 0.18). Likewise, patients receiving amlodipine had a significantly lower rate of myocardial infarction when compared with placebo recipients (hazard ratio, 0.58 [CI, 0.37 to 0.92]; P = 0.02). In contrast, patients receiving irbesartan had a significantly lower incidence of congestive heart failure when compared with placebo recipients (hazard ratio, 0.72 [CI, 0.52 to 1.00]; P = 0.048) or amlodipine recipients (hazard ratio, 0.65 [CI, 0.48 to 0.87]; P = 0.004).
                The composite cardiovascular event rate did not differ in patients with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy treated with irbesartan, amlodipine, or placebo in addition to conventional antihypertensive therapy. Our aim was to compare the effect of lacidipine and chlorthalidone on cardiovascular outcome as a primary parameter and blood pressure as a secondary in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension in a prospective study with an open design.
                1882 males and females outpatients > or = 60 years were randomly assigned to the administration of chlorthalidone 12.5 mg o.d. or lacidipine 4 mg o.d. Patients were recruited if sitting systolic blood pressure was > or = 160 mmHg with a diastolic blood pressure equal or lower than 95 mmHg. Primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events.
                At randomization mean systolic blood pressure was 178.1 mmHg in the lacidipine and 178.2 mmHg in the chlorthalidone group, the corresponding mean diastolic values being 86.9 and 86.8 mmHg. In both lacidipine and chlorthalidone groups treatment caused a significant (p < 0.001) and marked systolic blood pressure reduction which was maintained throughout the treatment period with a significant (p < 0.001) and steady although less marked reduction in diastolic blood pressure as well. At the end of treatment period (median 32 months), the reduction was 36.8/8.1 mmHg (systolic/diastolic) in the chlorthalidone and 38.4/7.9 mmHg in the lacidipine group, the final on treatment blood pressures being 142.0/79.2 and 143.2/79.5 mmHg, respectively. Treatments were similarly effective in males and females and in age groups between 60 and 69 years (n = 763), 70 and 79 years (n = 744) and > or = 80 years (n = 375). Similar reductions were obtained in a subgroup of patients (n = 209) followed in double-blind fashion for 1 year. The overall incidence of the primary endpoints was 9.3% with no significant between-group difference. Total mortality was also similar between groups.
                In elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension, administration of lacidipine or chlorthalidone markedly reduced systolic blood pressure with no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events and total mortality. The apparent shortfall in prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) noted in early hypertension trials has been attributed to disadvantages of the diuretics and beta blockers used. For a given reduction in blood pressure, some suggested that newer agents would confer advantages over diuretics and beta blockers. Our aim, therefore, was to compare the effect on non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD of combinations of atenolol with a thiazide versus amlodipine with perindopril.
                We did a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial in 19 257 patients with hypertension who were aged 40-79 years and had at least three other cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were assigned either amlodipine 5-10 mg adding perindopril 4-8 mg as required (amlodipine-based regimen; n=9639) or atenolol 50-100 mg adding bendroflumethiazide 1.25-2.5 mg and potassium as required (atenolol-based regimen; n=9618). Our primary endpoint was non-fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infarction) and fatal CHD. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                The study was stopped prematurely after 5.5 years' median follow-up and accumulated in total 106 153 patient-years of observation. Though not significant, compared with the atenolol-based regimen, fewer individuals on the amlodipine-based regimen had a primary endpoint (429 vs 474; unadjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.02, p=0.1052), fatal and non-fatal stroke (327 vs 422; 0.77, 0.66-0.89, p=0.0003), total cardiovascular events and procedures (1362 vs 1602; 0.84, 0.78-0.90, p<0.0001), and all-cause mortality (738 vs 820; 0.89, 0.81-0.99, p=0.025). The incidence of developing diabetes was less on the amlodipine-based regimen (567 vs 799; 0.70, 0.63-0.78, p<0.0001).
                The amlodipine-based regimen prevented more major cardiovascular events and induced less diabetes than the atenolol-based regimen. On the basis of previous trial evidence, these effects might not be entirely explained by better control of blood pressure, and this issue is addressed in the accompanying article. Nevertheless, the results have implications with respect to optimum combinations of antihypertensive agents. Are newer types of antihypertensive agents, which are currently more costly to purchase on average, as good or better than diuretics in reducing coronary heart disease incidence and progression? Will lowering LDL cholesterol in moderately hypercholesterolemic older individuals reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease and total mortality? These important medical practice and public health questions are to be addressed by the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a randomized, double-blind trial in 40,000 high-risk hypertensive patients. ALLHAT is designed to determine whether the combined incidence of fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) and nonfatal myocardial infarction differs between persons randomized to diuretic (chlorthalidone) treatment and each of three alternative treatments--a calcium antagonist (amlodipine), an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), and an alpha-adrenergic blocker (doxazosin). ALLHAT also contains a randomized, open-label, lipid-lowering trial designed to determine whether lowering LDL cholesterol in 20,000 moderately hypercholesterolemic patients (a subset of the 40,000) with a 3-hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG CoA) reductase inhibitor, pravastatin, will reduce all-cause mortality compared to a control group receiving "usual care." ALLHAT's main eligibility criteria are: 1) age 55 or older; 2) systolic or diastolic hypertension; and 3) one or more additional risk factors for heart attack (eg, evidence of atherosclerotic disease or type II diabetes). For the lipid-lowering trial, participants must have an LDL cholesterol of 120 to 189 mg/dL (100 to 129 mg/dL for those with known CHD) and a triglyceride level below 350 mg/dL. The mean duration of treatment and follow-up is planned to be 6 years. Further features of the rationale, design, objectives, treatment program, and study organization of ALLHAT are described in this article. The efficacy of antihypertensive drugs newer than diuretics and beta-blockers has not been established. We compared the effects of the calcium-channel blocker nifedipine once daily with the diuretic combination co-amilozide on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients with hypertension.
                We did a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial in Europe and Israel in 6321 patients aged 55-80 years with hypertension (blood pressure > or = 150/95 mm Hg, or > or = 160 mm Hg systolic). Patients had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. We randomly assigned patients nifedipine 30 mg in a long-acting gastrointestinal-transport-system (GITS) formulation (n=3157), or co-amilozide (hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg [corrected] plus amiloride 2.5 mg; n=3164). Dose titration was by dose doubling, and addition of atenolol 25-50 mg or enalapril 5-10 mg. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, or stroke. Analysis was done by intention to treat.
                Primary outcomes occurred in 200 (6.3%) patients in the nifedipine group and in 182 (5.8%) in the co-amilozide group (18.2 vs 16.5 events per 1000 patient-years; relative risk 1.10 [95% CI 0.91-1.34], p=0.35). Overall mean blood pressure fell from 173/99 mm Hg (SD 14/8) to 138/82 mm Hg (12/7). There was an 8% excess of withdrawals from the nifedipine group because of peripheral oedema (725 vs 518, p<0.0001), but serious adverse events were more frequent in the co-amilozide group (880 vs 796, p=0.02). Deaths were mainly non-vascular (nifedipine 176 vs co-amilozide 172; p=0.81). 80% of the primary events occurred in patients receiving randomised treatment (157 nifedipine, 147 co-amilozide, difference 0.33% [-0.7 to 1.4]).
                Nifedipine once daily and co-amilozide were equally effective in preventing overall cardiovascular or cerebrovascular complications. The choice of drug can be decided by tolerability and blood-pressure response rather than long-term safety or efficacy. To compare the rate of progression of mean maximum intimal-medial thickness (IMT) in carotid arteries, using quantitative B-mode ultrasound imaging, during antihypertensive therapy with isradipine vs hydrochlorothiazide.
                Randomized, double-blind, positive-controlled trial.
                Nine medical center clinics.
                A total of 883 patients with baseline mean +/- SD systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP, respectively) of 149.7 +/- 16.6 and 96.5 +/- 5.1 mm Hg, age of 58.5 +/- 8.5 years, and maximum IMT of 1.17 +/- 0.20 mm.
                Twice daily doses of isradipine (2.5-5.0 mg) or hydrochlorothiazide (12.5-25 mg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE (PRIMARY END POINT): Rate of progression of mean maximum IMT in 12 carotid focal points over 3 years.
                There was no difference in the rate of progression of mean maximum IMT between isradipine and hydrochlorothiazide over 3 years (P=.68). There was a higher incidence of major vascular events (eg, myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina, and sudden death) in isradipine (n=25; 5.65%) vs hydrochlorothiazide (n=14; 3.17%) (P=.07), and a significant increase in nonmajor vascular events and procedures (eg, transient ischemic attack, dysrhythmia, aortic valve replacement, and femoral popliteal bypass graft) in isradipine (n=40; 9.05%) vs hydrochlorothiazide (n=23; 5.22%) (P=.02). At 6 months, mean DBP decreased by 13.0 mm Hg in both groups, and mean SBP decreased by 19.5 mm Hg in hydrochlorothiazide and 16.0 mm Hg in isradipine (P=.002); the difference in SBP between the 2 groups persisted throughout the study but did not explain the increased incidence of vascular events in patients treated with isradipine.
                The rate of progression of mean maximum IMT in carotid arteries, the surrogate end point in this study, did not differ between the 2 treatment groups. The increased incidence of vascular events in patients receiving isradipine compared with hydrochlorothiazide is of concern and should be studied further. Calcium antagonists are a first-line treatment for hypertension. The effectiveness of diltiazem, a non-dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, in reducing cardiovascular morbidity or mortality is unclear. We compared the effects of diltiazem with that of diuretics, beta-blockers, or both on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients.
                In a prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint study, we enrolled 10,881 patients, aged 50-74 years, at health centres in Norway and Sweden, who had diastolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or more. We randomly assigned patients diltiazem, or diuretics, beta-blockers, or both. The combined primary endpoint was fatal and non-fatal stroke, myocardial infarction, and other cardiovascular death. Analysis was done by intention to treat.
                Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were lowered effectively in the diltiazem and diuretic and beta-blocker groups (reduction 20.3/18.7 vs 23.3/18.7 mm Hg; difference in systolic reduction p<0.001). A primary endpoint occurred in 403 patients in the diltiazem group and in 400 in the diuretic and beta-blocker group (16.6 vs 16.2 events per 1000 patient-years; relative risk 1.00 [95% CI 0.87-1.15], p=0.97). Fatal and non-fatal stroke occurred in 159 patients in the diltiazem group and in 196 in the diuretic and beta-blocker group (6.4 vs 7.9 events per 1000 patient-years; 0.80 [0.65-0.99], p=0.04) and fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction in 183 and 157 patients (7.4 vs 6.3 events per 1000 patient-years; 1.16 [0.94-1.44], p=0.17).
                Diltiazem was as effective as treatment based on diuretics, beta-blockers, or both in preventing the combined primary endpoint of all stroke, myocardial infarction, and other cardiovascular death.