Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation Research Articles

CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOMES AT RECOMMENDED BLOOD PRESSURE TARGETS IN MIDDLE AGED AND ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS AND HYPERTENSION

Objective: The optimal blood pressure (BP) target for patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension has been set at < 130/80 mmHg in guidelines. However, available data of event-based clinical outcomes trials show that little evidence supports these guideline recommendations. Design and method: We addressed this issue by post-hoc analyzing the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type-2 DM participating in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial. Patients (n = 5250) were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (< 25%, 25%-49%, 50–74%, 75% -100%) in which BP was reduced to < 140/90 or < 130/80 mmHg. Results: After adjustment for baseline demographic differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP achieved < 140/90 mmHg accompanied a progressive increase in the risk of CV mortality and morbidity as well as of cause-specific events such as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure (Figure, upper panel). A progressive reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced < 130/80 mmHg did not have any effect on CV risks (Figure, lower panel). Conclusions: In mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus participating in the VALUE trial, achieving more frequently BP < 140/90 mmHg showed a marked protective effect on overall and all cause specific cardiovascular outcomes. This was not the case for a more frequent achievement of the more intensive BP target, i.e. < 130/80 mmHg.

Cardiovascular outcomes at recommended blood pressure targets in middle-aged and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared to all middle-aged and elderly hypertensive study patients with high cardiovascular risk

Purpose Event-based clinical outcome trials have shown limited evidence to support guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus or with general high cardiovascular (CV) risk. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of CV events in patients who participated in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial and compared the hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with all high-risk hypertensive patients. Materials and methods Patients were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg. Patients with diabetes mellitus (n = 5250) were compared with the entire VALUE population with high CV risk (n = 15,245). Results After adjustments for baseline differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced to <140/90 mmHg, but not to <130/80 mmHg, was accompanied by a progressive increase in the risk of CV morbidity and mortality as well as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure in both diabetes mellitus and in all high-risk patients. Target BP <130/80 mmHg reduced stroke risk in the main population but not in the diabetes mellitus patients. Patients with diabetes mellitus had higher event rates for the primary cardiac endpoint and all-cause mortality driven by a higher rate of heart failure. Conclusion In the high-risk hypertensive patients of the VALUE trial achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg, but not <130/80 mmHg, showed principally the same protective effect on overall and cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus and in the general high-risk hypertensive population.

Cardiovascular outcomes at recommended blood pressure targets in middle-aged and elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension

Purpose Available data of event-based clinical outcomes trials show that little evidence supports the guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial. Material and methods Patients (n = 5250) were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥ 75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg. Results After adjustment for baseline demographic differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP achieved <140/90 mmHg accompanied a progressive increase in the risk of CV mortality and morbidity as well as of cause-specific events such as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure. A progressive reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced <130/80 mmHg did not have any effect on CV risks. Conclusion In mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the VALUE trial, achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg showed a marked protective effect on overall and all cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes. This was not the case for a more frequent achievement of the more intensive BP target, i.e. <130/80 mmHg.

Blood pressure variability in hypertensive patients with atrial fibrillation in the VALUE trial

Purpose: Blood pressure variability is associated with traditional cardiovascular risk factors, but little is known about the association with atrial fibrillation. We compared blood pressure variability in patients with and without atrial fibrillation using data from the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial.Materials and methods: The VALUE trial was a randomised-controlled trial of valsartan versus amlodipine in patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk, followed for 4.2 years (mean). For the present analysis we included patients with electrocardiogram at baseline and during follow-up, and ≥3 visits from 6 months onwards. We compared standard deviation (SD) of all blood pressures within each visit averaged across all visits (within-visit variability) and of mean blood pressure at each visit (visit-to-visit variability) in patients with and without atrial fibrillation at baseline. We similarly compared patients who developed non-persistent or persistent atrial fibrillation during follow-up with those who did not, using t-tests, ANOVA and linear regression.Results: Of 15,245 patients in the VALUE trial, 13,827 were eligible for analysis. SD of visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure was not significantly different between patients with and without atrial fibrillation at baseline (mean difference 0.3 mm Hg, p = 0.4), but significantly higher in patients with incident non-persistent or persistent atrial fibrillation during follow-up than in those who never developed atrial fibrillation (differences 1.2 and 1.8 mm Hg, respectively, p-values <0.0001). Associations with non-persistent and persistent atrial fibrillation were confirmed in linear regression models (p-values <0.0001). SD of within-visit systolic blood pressure was not significantly different between patients with and without atrial fibrillation at baseline (p = 0.4) but significantly higher in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation during follow-up (p = 0.04).Conclusion: In patients treated for hypertension, atrial fibrillation was not associated with increased blood pressure variability, but blood pressure variability was higher in those who developed atrial fibrillation during follow-up.

Predictors of cardiac morbidity in diabetic, new-onset diabetic and non-diabetic high-risk hypertensive patients: The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial

Diabetic and new-onset diabetic patients with hypertension have higher cardiac morbidity than patients without diabetes. We aimed to investigate whether baseline predictors of cardiac morbidity, the major constituent of the primary endpoint in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial, were different in patients with diabetes and new-onset diabetes compared to patients without diabetes. In total, 15,245 high-risk hypertensive patients in the VALUE trial were followed for an average of 4.2 years. At baseline, 5250 patients were diabetic by the 1999 World Health Organization criteria, 1298 patients developed new-onset diabetes and 8697 patients stayed non-diabetic during follow-up. Cardiac morbidity was defined as a composite of myocardial infarction and heart failure requiring hospitalization, and baseline predictors were identified by univariate and multivariate stepwise Cox regression analyses. History of coronary heart disease (CHD) and age were the most important predictors of cardiac morbidity in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. History of CHD, history of stroke and age were the only significant predictors of cardiac morbidity in patients with new-onset diabetes. Predictors of cardiac morbidity, in particular history of CHD and age, were essentially the same in high-risk hypertensive patients with diabetes, new-onset diabetes and without diabetes who participated in the VALUE trial.

No evidence for a J-shaped curve in treated hypertensive patients with increased cardiovascular risk: The VALUE trial

Previous studies have debated the notion that low blood pressure (BP) during treatment, particularly diastolic (DBP), is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. We evaluated the impact of low BP on cardiovascular outcomes in a high-risk population of 15,244 hypertensive patients, almost half of whom had a history of coronary artery disease (CAD). In the prospective Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial, patients were randomized to valsartan or amlodipine regimens and followed for 4.2 years (mean) with no difference in the primary cardiovascular endpoint. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between average on-treatment BP and clinical outcomes. The relationship between BP and cardiovascular events was adjusted for age, gender and body mass index, and baseline qualifying risk factors and diseases (smoking, high total cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, proteinuria, CAD, previous stroke and left ventricular hypertrophy). DBP ≥ 90 mmHg, compared with < 90 mmHg, was associated with increased incidence of the primary cardiovascular endpoint (all cardiac events); however, DBP < 70 mmHg, compared with ≥ 70 mmHg, was not associated with increased incidence after covariate adjustment (no J-shaped curve). Similar results were observed for death, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure and stroke, considered separately. Nadir for MI was at DBP of 76 mmHg and for stroke 60 mmHg. The ratio of MI to stroke increased with lower DBP. In CAD patients the MI to stroke ratio was more pronounced than in patients without CAD but there was no significant J-curve in either group. Systolic BP ≥ 150 but not < 130 mmHg, compared with 130–149 mmHg, similarly was associated with increased risk for primary outcome. In conclusion, patients in BP strata ≥ 150/90 mmHg, but not patients in BP strata < 130/70 mmHg, were at increased risk for adverse outcomes in this hypertensive, high-risk population. Although benefit in preventing MI in relation to preventing stroke levels off for the lowest BPs, these data provide no support for a J-curve in the treatment of high-risk hypertensive patients . The increase in the ratio of MI to stroke with lower DBP indicates target organ heterogeneity in that the optimal on-treatment DBP for cerebroprotection is below that for cardioprotection.

Analysis of Recent Papers in Hypertension Initial Combination Therapy Provides More Prompt Blood Pressure Control and Reduces Cardiovascular Events But Remains Underutilized

Analysis of Recent Papers in Hypertension Initial Combination Therapy Provides More Prompt Blood Pressure Control and Reduces Cardiovascular Events But Remains Underutilized

Cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive patients

To determine whether blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive patients achieved with combination drug therapy provides the same cardiovascular benefits as with single-agent therapy. Drug combinations, most often including hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), are now recommended for routine BP management, but their effects on cardiovascular event rates have not been compared with effective monotherapy. We conducted retrospective analyses of the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) data. VALUE compared cardiovascular event rates of valsartan and amlodipine. Patients with BPs not controlled (<140/90 mmHg) by the single agents had HCTZ and, if required, additional drugs of different classes, added. Using data pooled from the two treatment arms, we have now divided patients into those controlled on monotherapy and those controlled or not controlled by combination therapy. The primary study endpoint was first occurrence of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke. Comparisons between groups were by Cox regression, adjusted for on-treatment BP, age, prior cardiovascular events and left ventricular hypertrophy; the comparison between the monotherapy and combination therapy controlled groups was based on events occurring after 3 months by when the decision to use monotherapy or combination therapy was made. The primary endpoint occurred in 505 of 5924 (8.5%) monotherapy and 511 of 4621 (11.1%) combination therapy controlled patients: hazard ratio was 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.90]. If these two groups were matched for baseline BPs and all events included from study baseline, the hazard ratio was 0.76 (95% CI 0.67-0.86). The difference between combination controlled and uncontrolled [434 of 3390 (12.8%)] groups was not significant [hazard ratio 0.90 (95% CI 0.80-1.03], nor when they were matched for baseline BPs [hazard ratio 0.95 (95% CI 0.81-1.11)]. Independent of prior cardiovascular history or baseline BP, hypertensive patients requiring combination therapy, which includes a thiazide diuretic for BP control, have a poorer cardiovascular prognosis than those controlled by monotherapy and only a nonsignificantly lower event rate than noncontrolled patients.

Do angiotensin receptor blockers prevent myocardial infarctions as well as other initial therapies?

As their introduction, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been widely promulgated as an acceptable alternative to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs). Beyond a simple antihypertensive effect, ACEIs have been shown to reduce the rates of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and new-onset heart failure, and appear to have a 'blood pressure independent' effect. Given the shared mechanism of preventing action of angiotensin II, the effects of ARB therapy on reduction in cardiovascular and renal outcomes were anticipated to be equal to that of ACEI. The role of ARBs in the prevention of MI has not only been disputed, but also has at times cast the class as a causative agent in increasing the risk of MI. This potentially deleterious effect was proposed after results from the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial, in which the use of valsartan (ARB) was compared with amlodipine in patients at high cardiovascular disease risk, found an excess of MIs among patients in the valsartan arm. Subsequent clinical trials and meta-analyses have largely laid to rest the question of whether ARBs contribute to cardiovascular risk. The definitive answer of whether ARBs are effective, if at all, in preventing MI remains difficult to parse out. Current evidence from newer clinical trials and comprehensive meta-analyses suggests that ARBs, while effective antihypertensive agents that protect against risk of stroke, renal disease, diabetes, and heart failure, are likely to have a neutral effect upon reduction of MI when compared with other antihypertensive agents.

Usefulness of Heart Rate to Predict Cardiac Events in Treated Patients With High-Risk Systemic Hypertension

A high heart rate (HR) predicts future cardiovascular events. We explored the predictive value of HR in patients with high-risk hypertension and examined whether blood pressure reduction modifies this association. The participants were 15,193 patients with hypertension enrolled in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial and followed up for 5 years. The HR was assessed from electrocardiographic recordings obtained annually throughout the study period. The primary end point was the interval to cardiac events. After adjustment for confounders, the hazard ratio of the composite cardiac primary end point for a 10-beats/min of the baseline HR increment was 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.20). Compared to the lowest HR quintile, the adjusted hazard ratio in the highest quintile was 1.73 (95% confidence interval 1.46 to 2.04). Compared to the pooled lower quintiles of baseline HR, the annual incidence of primary end point in the top baseline quintile was greater in each of the 5 study years (all p <0.05). The adjusted hazard ratio for the primary end point in the highest in-trial HR heart rate quintile versus the lowest quintile was 1.53 (95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.85). The incidence of primary end points in the highest in-trial HR group compared to the pooled 4 lower quintiles was 53% greater in patients with well-controlled blood pressure (p <0.001) and 34% greater in those with uncontrolled blood pressure (p = 0.002). In conclusion, an increased HR is a long-term predictor of cardiovascular events in patients with high-risk hypertension. This effect was not modified by good blood pressure control. It is not yet known whether a therapeutic reduction of HR would improve cardiovascular prognosis.

A current evaluation of the safety of angiotensin receptor blockers and direct renin inhibitors

The safety of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular and renal diseases has been well documented in numerous randomized clinical trials involving thousands of patients. However, recent concerns have surfaced about possible links between ARBs and increased risks of myocardial infarction and cancer. Less is known about the safety of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren, which was approved as an antihypertensive in 2007. This article provides a detailed review of the safety of ARBs and aliskiren, with an emphasis on the risks of cancer and myocardial infarction associated with ARBs. Safety data were identified by searching PubMed and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Web sites through April 2011. ARBs are generally well tolerated, with no known class-specific adverse events. The possibility of an increased risk of myocardial infarction associated with ARBs was suggested predominantly because the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial reported a statistically significant increase in the incidence of myocardial infarction with valsartan compared with amlodipine. However, no large-scale, randomized clinical trials published after the VALUE study have shown a statistically significant increase in the incidence of myocardial infarction associated with ARBs compared with placebo or non-ARBs. Meta-analyses examining the risk of cancer associated with ARBs have produced conflicting results, most likely due to the inherent limitations of analyzing heterogeneous data and a lack of published cancer data. An ongoing safety investigation by the FDA has not concluded that ARBs increase the risk of cancer. Pooled safety results from clinical trials indicate that aliskiren is well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of placebo. ARBs and aliskiren are well tolerated in patients with hypertension and certain cardiovascular and renal conditions; their benefits outweigh possible safety concerns.

Angiotensin-receptor blockade, cancer, and concerns

Ilke Sipahi and colleagues 1 Sipahi I Debanne SM Rowland DY Simon DI Fang JC Angiotensin-receptor blockade and risk of cancer: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11: 627-636 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (383) Google Scholar meta-analysis of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and cancer risk is concerning. Although the increase in risk of new cancer occurrence over 4 years in patients randomly assigned to ARBs was modest (1·2%) compared with the control group, the public health implications are substantial; for example, this increased risk would result in a rise of 3000 new cancers for every 1 million individuals treated with these ARBs each year. Angiotensin-receptor blockade, cancer, and concerns – Authors' replySoon after publication of our article reporting an excess risk of cancer among patients treated with angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs),1 Stevo Julius and colleagues—on behalf of the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial—claimed that we did not contact them for their cancer data, and that the data “would have been provided” if requested.2 In their letter published here, they now state that VALUE has a policy of providing access to data only to its own investigators. Full-Text PDF

Angiotensin-receptor blockade, cancer, and concerns

As leaders of the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial, we feel obligated to point out a shortcoming in Ilke Sipahi and colleagues'1 meta-analysis of cancer rates in patients treated with angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) published recently in this journal.

The Clock Is Ticking: The Case for Achieving More Rapid Control of Hypertension

The Clock Is Ticking: The Case for Achieving More Rapid Control of Hypertension

Dizzy Spells Complicating Hypertension Management

Dizzy Spells Complicating Hypertension Management

Amlodipine

Amlodipine

Reduced incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation with angiotensin II receptor blockade: the VALUE trial

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia and increases cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients. Therefore, in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) a prespecified objective was to compare the effects of valsartan and amlodipine on new-onset AF. A total of 15 245 hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk received valsartan 80-160 mg/day or amlodipine 5-10 mg/day combined with additional antihypertensive agents. Electrocardiograms were obtained every year and analyzed centrally for evidence of left ventricular hypertrophy and new-onset AF. At baseline, AF was diagnosed in 2.6% of 7649 valsartan recipients and 2.6% of 7596 amlodipine recipients. During antihypertensive treatment the incidence of at least one documented occurrence of new-onset AF was 3.67% with valsartan and 4.34% with amlodipine [unadjusted hazard ratio 0.843, [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.713, 0.997], P = 0.0455]. The incidence of persistent AF was 1.35% with valsartan and 1.97% with amlodipine [unadjusted hazard ratio 0.683 (95% CI: 0.525, 0.889), P = 0.0046]. Valsartan-based treatment reduced the development of new-onset AF, particularly sustained AF in hypertensive patients, compared with amlodipine-based therapy. These findings suggest that angiotensin II receptor blockers may result in greater benefits than calcium antagonists in hypertensive patients at risk of new-onset AF.

The Newly Identified Hypertensive Patient: Cost‐Effective Laboratory Investigation

The Newly Identified Hypertensive Patient: Cost‐Effective Laboratory Investigation

Analysis of Recent Papers in Hypertension

Analysis of Recent Papers in Hypertension

New-Onset Diabetes, Antihypertensive Treatment, and Outcome

New-onset diabetes (NOD) confers increased risk for cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in different clinical settings.1,2 In the specific context of hypertensive subjects exposed to the long-term effects of antihypertensive drugs, a study from our group3 and a recent 28-year follow-up study from Sweden4 showed a greater risk of major cardiovascular disease in hypertensive subjects who developed NOD than in those who did not. Notably, the yearly incidence of NOD ranged from 1.0% in the Swedish study4 to 1.9% in our study.3 This issue of Hypertension hosts a posthoc analysis of the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) database, which tested the hypothesis that NOD is a predictor of cardiac morbidity and cardiac and all-cause mortality.5 The hypertensive subjects who developed NOD showed a 43% higher risk of cardiac morbidity (ie, a composite of sudden death, myocardial infarction, death associated with revascularization, and congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization) when compared with those who did not develop diabetes. When the determinants of the composite pool of cardiovascular events were examined separately, NOD was associated with a marginally higher risk of myocardial infarction (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.30; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.70; P =0.057) and a significantly higher risk of congestive heart failure (HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.87; P =0.017). These findings are in full agreement with a recent report from the ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET), in which NOD was associated with a 74% excess risk …