6/5/2006 - 1 1 CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE OUTCOMES IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS STRATIFIED BY BASELINE GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE (4 GROUPS by GFR) ALLHAT.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

ALLHAT New Research Opportunities.

Advertisements

11/2/ Implications of ASCOT Results for ALLHAT Conclusions ALLHAT.

THE ACTION TO CONTROL CARDIOVASCULAR RISK IN DIABETES STUDY (ACCORD)

1 SECOND AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL BLOOD PRESSURE STUDY (ANBP-2) Enalapril/ACEI vs. HCTZ, n = 6,083 Randomized, open-label (blinded endpoint review) All CV events.

The Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease (LIPID) The LIPID Study Group N Engl J Med 1998;339:

Heart Failure With Preserved And Impaired Systolic Left Ventricular Function In ALLHAT JB Kostis, B Davis, L Simpson, H Black, W Cushman, P Einhorn, M.

Diabetes Trials Unit University of Oxford WebSite: Lipids in Diabetes Study.

Effect of High-dose Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker (ARB) Monotherapy versus ARB plus Calcium Channel Blocker Combination on Cardiovascular Events in Japanese.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering.

COURAGE: Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation Purpose To compare the efficacy of optimal medical therapy (OMT)

Did Type of Prior Antihypertensive Therapy Influence the Heart Failure Results in ALLHAT? Richard Grimm, Barry Davis, Linda Piller, Karen Margolis, Joshua.

Results of Monotherapy in ALLHAT: On-treatment Analyses ALLHAT Outcomes for participants who received no step-up drugs.

1 Presenter Disclosure Information FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: DSMB’s: Merck, Takeda Barry R. Davis, MD, PhD Clinical Outcomes in Participants with Dysmetabolic.

6 / 5 / RENAL DISEASE OUTCOMES IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS STRATIFIED INTO 3 GROUPS BY BASELINE GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE (GFR) ALLHAT.

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial ALLHAT study overview Double-blind, randomized trial to determine whether.

Clinical implications. Burden of coronary disease 56 millions deaths worldwide in millions deaths worldwide in % due to CV disease (~ 16.

Blood Pressure Control in Hispanics in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) Karen L. Margolis, Linda.

Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents

Is It the Achieved Blood Pressure or Specific Medications that Make a Difference in Outcome, or Is the Question Moot? William C. Cushman, MD Professor,

Hypertension In elderly population. JNC VII BP Classification SBP mmHgDBP mmHg Normal

1 ATRIAL FIBRILLATION AT BASELINE AND DURING FOLLOW-UP in The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial November 9, 2003.

1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Major Outcomes in High Risk Hypertensive.

1 Antihypertensive Trial Outcome Differences: Diuretic vs. Calcium Channel Blocker Compared to participants assigned to the diuretic, those assigned to.

1 Can One Evaluate An Outcomes Claim Based On An Active Controlled Study? Pfizer Response Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee Rockville,

Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through COMbination Therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension The First Outcomes Trial of Initial Therapy With.

William C. Cushman, MD, FACP, FAHA Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Memphis, TN For The ACCORD Study Group.

Aim To determine the effects of a Coversyl- based blood pressure lowering regimen on the risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke.

WOSCOPS: West Of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Purpose To determine whether pravastatin reduces combined incidence of nonfatal MI and death due to.

1 Review of the Design and Initial Findings for Pre-specified Outcomes and Subgroups Paul K. Whelton, M.D., M.Sc. Loyola University Medical Center Maywood,

ALLHAT Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial JAMA 2002;288:

7/27/2006 Outcomes in Hypertensive Black and Nonblack Patients Treated with Chlorthalidone, Amlodipine, and Lisinopril* * Wright JT, Dunn JK, Cutler JA.

VBWG HOPE-TOO: Results of the HOPE Study Extension.

Background There are 12 different types of medications to lower blood sugar levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. It is widely agreed upon that metformin.

ALLHAT 6/5/ CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE OUTCOMES IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS STRATIFIED BY BASELINE GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE (3 GROUPS by GFR)

Pre-ALLHAT Drug Use IMS Health NDTI, Year % of Treated Patients on Medication CCBs Beta Blockers Diuretics ACE Inhibitors.

1 Pre-Specified Outcomes All primary and secondary outcomes and their components were pre-specified, i.e., they appeared in the protocol, manual of operations.

Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents FDA-Mandated CV Safety Trials 1.

1 ALLHAT Antihypertensive Trial Results by Baseline Diabetic Status January 28, 2004.

Cardiovascular Outcomes in Hypertensives with CHD Randomized to Amlodipine versus Lisinopril in ALLHAT Frans Leenen MD, PhD, Chuke Nwachuku MA, MPH, Dr.

The MICRO-HOPE. Microalbuminuria, Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Reference Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation.

A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control The SPRINT Research Group* November 9, /NEJMoa R2 이성곤 /pf. 우종신.

The AURORA Trial Source: Holdaas H, Holme I, Schmieder RE, et al. Rosuvastatin in diabetic hemodialysis patient. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;22(7):1335–1341.

내과 R1 문정락 / prof. 정경환 N Engl J Med 369;10 nejm.org 932 september 5, 2013.

Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents

What should the Systolic BP treatment goal be in patients with CKD?

Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents

Nephrology Journal Club The SPRINT Trial Parker Gregg

The LIVES Sub-analysis

From ESH 2016 | LB 3: Davide Agnoletti, MD

Baseline characteristics and effectiveness results

Health and Human Services National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

CORAL Trial design: Patients with renal artery stenosis and hypertension or chronic kidney disease were randomized to renal artery stenting (n = 467) vs.

All-cause mortality by treatment group

ALLHAT ALLHAT Antihypertensive Trial Results by Baseline Diabetic & Fasting Glucose Status.

Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration Slide deck

The Anglo Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial

PS Sever, PM Rothwell, SC Howard, JE Dobson, B Dahlöf,

Effects of High Density Lipoprotein Raising Therapies on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, with or without Renal Impairment:

Avoiding Cardiovascular events through COMbination therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH): Design Randomized, double-blind.

Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)

The percentage of subjects with de novo development of renal function impairment (GFR

ALLHAT: What Outcomes Would Have Been Expected?

Recent studies of ACE inhibition in renal disease

Insights from the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT)

Health and Human Services National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Lipid-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): Results in the Subgroup of Patients with Diabetes Peter S. Sever, Bjorn Dahlöf, Neil Poulter, Hans Wedel, for the.

Table of Contents Why Do We Treat Hypertension? Recommendation 5

Adjusted relative risk for developing end-stage renal disease (ESRD) associated with blood-pressure level BP level (mm Hg) Adjusted relative risk 95%

Post-Heart Failure Mortality

The following slides highlight a report by Dr

Presentation transcript:

6/5/ CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE OUTCOMES IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS STRATIFIED BY BASELINE GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE (4 GROUPS by GFR) ALLHAT

6/5/ Introduction Over 13 million Americans are estimated to have chronic kidney disease (CKD) Patients with CKD are at very high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) There are limited data about the comparative effects of antihypertensive therapy on CVD outcomes in CKD patients Since risk of CVD is much higher than risk for ESRD in CKD patients, choices of therapy need to be guided by effects on CVD outcomes 17.7% (n=7116) of ALLHAT participants had an estimated GFR <60 ml/min/1.73m 2 at baseline ALLHAT

6/5/ Other Studies Many trials that studied patients with CKD do not have adequate assessment / reporting or power to evaluate CV events –HOPE demonstrated increased CV risk in patients with renal insufficiency and that ramipril reduced risk in this subgroup compared to placebo –IDNT and RENAAL showed similar CV event rates with ARB vs CCB (IDNT) and placebo (RENAAL), except hospitalization for first heart failure in RENAAL was lower with the ARB –AASK (beta blocker, ACE, CCB) showed no difference in CV event rates ALLHAT

4 Normal GFR (  90) Mild  GFR (60-89) Moderate  GFR (30- 59) Severe  GFR (<30) N8,12618,1095, Mean age, y **70.7**70.3** Black non-Hisp, % **24.9**42.9 Women, % **52.1**58.8** Mean SBP **150.0** Mean DBP **84.1**83.7 Type 2 diabetes, % **33.1**41.8 History of CHD***, % **30.6**28.0** Baseline Characteristics Stratified By Estimated GFR* *Estimated (eGFR) (ml/min/1.73 m 2 ) calculated by simplified MDRD equation (Levey et al., J Am Soc Nephrol 11, A ) ** p<.05 compared with normal GFR ***p<0.022, amlodipine (28%) vs. chlorthalidone (31%) in participants with GFR ALLHAT

6/5/ Estimated (eGFR) (ml/min/1.73 m 2 ) calculated by simplified MDRD equation * P <0.001 vs. GFR90+ ALLHAT * Relative Risk of Combined CVD by Baseline GFR Group (Adjusted for age, race, gender, BMI, SBP, DBP, HDL- cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, fasting triglycerides, history of diabetes, and cigarette smoking) * *

6/5/ Blood Pressure at 4 Years by Treatment Group and Baseline GFR GFRChlorAmlodLisin SBP - mean (sd,N)  (15.2, 2276)134.6 (14.4, 1462)*135.6 (17.3, 1301)* (15.5, 5310)134.5 (14.6, 3127)*135.2 (16.9, 3024)* (17.2, 1488)135.9 (17.0, 855)136.4 (18.3, 797) < (14.8, 23)133.5 (18.2, 14)137.4 (15.9, 16) DBP - mean (sd,N)  (9.5, 2276)76.4 (9.0, 1462)77.6 (10.1, 1301)* (9.6, 5308)75.8 (9.6, 3127)*76.3 (10.2, 3024) (9.9, 1488)74.2 (9.7, 855)*75.7 (11.3, 797) < (12.1, 23)69.9 (11.0, 14)75.4 (9.7, 16) * p<0.05 compared with chlorthalidone ALLHAT

1 / 10 / Evaluating Treatment Effects by Subgroup Significant Test for Treatment x Subgroup Interaction? YesNo Significant treatment difference within 1 or more subgroups? YesInteractionNo interaction NoInteractionNo interaction Interaction – Use subgroup estimates of treatment effects No interaction – Use estimate of treatment effect in total population

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneAmlodipine GFR  (0.6) 252 / (0.7) 141 / ( ) 0.29 GFR (0.4) 740 / (0.6) 427 / (0.87 – 1.10) 0.72 GFR (0.9) 303 / (1.2) 192 / (0.92 – 1.32) 0.29 GFR < (5.1) 15 / (3.4) 2 / (0.06 – 1.08) 0.06 Total11.5 (0.3) 1362 / 15, (0.4) 798 / (0.91 – 1.08) 0.81 Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT CHD (Nonfatal MI & Fatal CHD) by Baseline GFR & Treatment – Amlodipine vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneLisinopril GFR  (0.6) 252 / (0.8) 157 / (0.86 – 1.28) 0.67 GFR (0.4) 740 / (0.6) 421 / (0.86 – 1.09) 0.59 GFR (0.9) 303 / (1.1) 173 / (0.82 – 1.20) 0.95 GFR < (5.1) 15 / (6.3) 11 / (0.56 – 2.67) 0.61 Total11.5 (0.3) 1362 / 15, (0.4) 796 / (0.91 – 1.08) 0.81 Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT CHD (Nonfatal MI & Fatal CHD) by Baseline GFR & Treatment – Lisinopril vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneAmlodipine GFR  (0.9) 133 / (1.2) 72 / (0.66 – 1.18) 0.40 GFR (0.8) 304 / (1.1) 184 / (0.84 – 1.21) 0.96 GFR (1.7) 126 / (2.4) 83 / (0.85 – 1.49) 0.40 GFR < (9.2) 6 / / Total13.5 (0.6) 592 / (0.8) 358 / (0.87 – 1.13) 0.93 Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT CHD (Nonfatal MI & Fatal CHD) by Baseline GFR & Treatment in Diabetic Participants – Amlodipine vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneLisinopril GFR  (0.9) 133 / (1.1) 79 / (0.77 – 1.35) 0.87 GFR (0.8) 304 / (1.1) 167 / (0.81 – 1.18) 0.81 GFR (1.7) 126 / (2.0) 70 / (0.75 – 1.35) 0.98 GFR < (9.2) 6 / (10.3) 6 / (0.46 – 4.44) 0.54 Total13.5 (0.6) 592 / (0.7) 339 / (0.87 – 1.14) 0.97 Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT CHD (Nonfatal MI & Fatal CHD) by Baseline GFR & Treatment in Diabetic Participants – Lisinopril vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneAmlodipine GFR  (0.9) 803 / (1.1) 487 / (0.86 – 1.08) 0.56 GFR (0.6) 2125 / (0.8) 1312 / (0.99 – 1.14) 0.08 GFR (1.2) 839 / (1.6) 522 / (0.98 – 1.23) 0.09 GFR < (6.4) 41 / (7.8) 15 / (0.35 – 1.16) 0.14 Total30.9 (0.5) 3941 / 15, (0.6) 2432 / (0.99 – 1.09) 0.12 Combined CVD = CHD death, nonfatal MI, stroke, coronary revascularization procedures, hospitalized or treated angina, treated or hospitalized HF, and peripheral arterial disease (hospitalized, or outpatient revascularization) Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT Combined CVD by Baseline GFR & Treatment – Amlodipine vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneLisinopril GFR  (0.9) 803 / (1.2) 526 / (0.99 – 1.24) 0.06 GFR (0.6) 2125 / (0.8) 1330 / (1.02 – 1.17) 0.02 GFR (1.2) 839 / (1.6) 525 / (1.02 – 1.26) 0.03 GFR < (6.4) 41 / (7.5) 22 / (0.50 – 1.43) 0.53 Total30.9 (0.5) 3941 / 15, (0.6) 2514 / (1.05 – 1.16) <0.001 Combined CVD = CHD death, nonfatal MI, stroke, coronary revascularization procedures, hospitalized or treated angina, treated or hospitalized HF, and peripheral arterial disease (hospitalized, or outpatient revascularization) Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT Combined CVD by Baseline GFR & Treatment – Lisinopril vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneAmlodipine GFR  (1.3) 402 / (1.8) 256 / (0.89 – 1.22) 0.61 GFR (1.1) 814 / (1.4) 499 / (0.92 – 1.15) 0.62 GFR (2.0) 309 / (2.7) 219 / (1.05 – 1.49) 0.01 GFR < (10.3) 17 / (11.1) 5 / (0.15 – 1.13) 0.09 Total33.9 (0.8) 1609 / (1.0) 1030 / (0.98 – 1.15) 0.12 Combined CVD = CHD death, nonfatal MI, stroke, coronary revasc procedures, hosp or treated angina, treated or hosp HF, and peripheral arterial disease (hosp or outpatient revasc) Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT Combined CVD by Baseline GFR & Treatment in Diabetic Participants – Amlodipine vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneLisinopril GFR  (1.3) 402 / (1.8) 257 / (0.95 – 1.31) 0.17 GFR (1.1) 814 / (1.4) 482 / (0.96 – 1.20) 0.24 GFR (2.0) 209 / (2.6) 182 / (0.90 – 1.30) 0.38 GFR < (10.3) 17 / (11.4) 11 / (0.39 – 1.76) 0.62 Total33.9 (0.8) 1609 / (1.0) 985 / (1.00 – 1.17) Combined CVD = CHD death, nonfatal MI, stroke, coronary revasc procedures, hosp or treated angina, treated or hosp HF, and peripheral arterial disease (hosp or outpatient revasc) Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT Combined CVD by Baseline GFR & Treatment in Diabetic Participants – Lisinopril vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneAmlodipine GFR  (0.4) 118 / (0.5) 70 / (0.70 – 1.27) 0.71 GFR (0.3) 366 / (0.4) 185 / (0.71 – 1.02) 0.08 GFR (0.6) 149 / (1.0) 96 / (0.87 – 1.46) 0.35 GFR <308 / (3.6) 4 / (6.8) 0.93 (0.28 – 3.09) 0.91 Total5.6 (0.2) 675 / 15, (0.3) 377 / (0.82 – 1.06) 0.28 Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT Stroke by Baseline GFR & Treatment – Amlodipine vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneLisinopril GFR  (0.4) 118 / (0.6) 101 / (1.10 – 1.87) 0.01 GFR (0.3) 366 / (0.4) 239 / (0.95 – 1.31) 0.19 GFR (0.6) 149 / (0.8) 96 / (0.83 – 1.40) 0.56 GFR < (3.6) 8 / (6.8) 7 / (0.50 – 3.79) 0.54 Total5.6 (0.2) 675 / 15, (0.3) 457 / (1.02 – 1.30) 0.02 Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT Stroke by Baseline GFR & Treatment – Lisinopril vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneAmlodipine GFR  (0.6) 55 / (0.8) 33 / (0.63 – 1.50) 0.92 GFR (0.6) 176 / (0.7) 83 / (0.59 – 1.00) 0.05 GFR (1.1) 60 / (1.8) 41 / (0.81 – 1.79) 0.36 GFR < (6.0) 3 / (5.4) 1 / (0.06 – 5.11) 0.58 Total7.1 (0.4) 314 / (0.5) 172 / (0.75 – 1.08) 0.26 Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT Stroke by Baseline GFR & Treatment in Diabetic Participants – Amlodipine vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneLisinopril GFR  (0.6) 55 / (1.1) 53 / (1.14 – 2.43) 0.01 GFR (0.6) 176 / (0.8) 99 / (0.78 – 1.28) 1.00 GFR (1.1) 60 / (1.5) 29 / (0.56 – 1.36) 0.55 GFR < (6.0) 3 / (11.8) 4 / (0.39 – 7.78) 0.47 Total7.1 (0.4) 314 / (0.6) 193 / (0.90 – 1.28) 0.45 Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT Stroke by Baseline GFR & Treatment in Diabetic Participants – Lisinopril vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneAmlodipine GFR  (0.5) 147 / (0.6) 121 / (1.05 – 1.71) 0.02 GFR (0.4) 435 / (0.5) 380 / (1.34 – 1.79) <0.001 GFR (0.9) 247 / (1.2) 168 / (0.97 – 1.47) 0.10 GFR < (6.6) 12 / (6.1) 6 / (0.32 – 2.61) 0.86 Total7.7 (0.3) 870 / 15, (0.4) 706 / (1.26 – 1.55) <0.001 Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT Heart Failure by Baseline GFR & Treatment – Amlodipine vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneLisinopril GFR  (0.5) 147 / (0.6) 110 / (0.97 – 1.61) 0.08 GFR (0.4) 435 / (0.4) 278 / (0.94 – 1.28) 0.25 GFR (0.9) 247 / (1.2) 180 / (1.04 – 1.57) 0.02 GFR < (6.6) 12 / (6.6) 11 / (0.61 – 3.73) 0.37 Total7.7 (0.3) 870 / 15, (0.4) 612 / (1.08 – 1.33) Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT Heart Failure by Baseline GFR & Treatment – Lisinopril vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneAmlodipine GFR  (0.8) 87 / (1.1) 65 / (0.88 – 1.71) 0.22 GFR (0.7) 203 / (1.0) 177 / (1.24 – 1.90) <0.001 GFR (1.6) 100 / (2.5) 85 / (1.16 – 2.17) GFR < (6.3) 4 / (8.3) 2 / (0.13 – 4.89) 0.81 Total9.7 (0.5) 410 / (0.7) 347 / (1.25 – 1.69) <0.001 Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT Heart Failure by Baseline GFR & Treatment in Diabetic Participants – Amlodipine vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ year rates per 100 (se) & total events / N Relative Risk (A/C) (95% CI) p value ChlorthalidoneLisinopril GFR  (0.8) 87 / (1.0) 68 / (0.97 – 1.88) 0.07 GFR (0.7) 203 / (0.9) 119 / (0.82 – 1.31) 0.77 GFR (1.6) 100 / (2.2) 75 / (1.01 – 1.92) 0.04 GFR < (6.3) 4 / (10.2) 6 / (0.63 – 10.37) 0.19 Total9.7 (0.5) 410 / (0.7) 284 / (1.03 – 1.42) 0.02 Differences among treatment group effects by baseline GFR group are not statistically significant. ALLHAT Heart Failure by Baseline GFR & Treatment in Diabetic Participants – Lisinopril vs Chlorthalidone

6/5/ Discussion ALLHAT confirms increased risk for CVD in patients with reduced GFR. The overall study results of no difference in the primary outcome for the lisinopril vs. chlorthalidone and amlodipine vs. chlorthalidone comparisons was consistent across diabetes, GFR, and diabetes-GFR subgroups. ALLHAT

6/5/ Conclusion Amlodipine and lisinopril are not superior to chlorthalidone in preventing fatal CHD/non fatal MI Chlorthalidone and amlodipine are similar but chlorthalidone is superior to lisinopril in reducing combined CVD events independent of level of renal function. ALLHAT In high risk hypertensive patients with impaired renal function: