American Journal of Kidney Diseases
Volume 54, Issue 6 , Pages 1000-1004, December 2009

Is Choice of Antihypertensive Agent Important in Improving Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients?

  • Jula K. Inrig, MD, MHS
    • ,
  • Robert D. Toto, MD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to Robert D. Toto, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390-8856

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas

published online 27 September 2009.

Article Outline

 

Commentary on Jamerson K, Weber MA, Bakris GL, et al; ACCOMPLISH Trial Investigators. Benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(23):2417-2428.

Hypertension currently affects > 25% of the world's population, and its prevalence is increasing.1 By 2025, nearly 1 in 3 adults worldwide (∼1.56 billion people) are projected to have hypertension.1 Hypertension accounts for 64 million disability-adjusted life-years and is the third most important cause of global burden of disease in the general population.2 As one of the leading risk factors for increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, hypertension is an important treatable public health problem. Therefore, research identifying how to manage hypertension to improve cardiovascular outcomes is of global importance. Many randomized controlled trials have shown that blood pressure (BP) lowering in hypertensive individuals improves cardiovascular outcomes.3, 4, 5, 6 More recently, studies comparing specific therapeutic agents have raised the hypothesis that certain classes of antihypertensive agents may confer cardiovascular protection beyond their effects on BP lowering. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) was one such trial. ALLHAT showed the equivalence of a thiazide-type diuretic compared with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a calcium channel blocker (CCB) in terms of heart attack.7 An important lesson from this trial was that a substantial proportion of hypertensive individuals require more than 1 antihypertensive agent to achieve BP goals promulgated in clinical practice guidelines.8 This has led to the notion that combinations of antihypertensive agents may be desirable for managing hypertension, particularly in high-risk individuals. The ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension) Study, published in 2008 in the New England Journal of Medicine, sheds new light on combination therapies for the treatment of hypertension.9

Back to Article Outline

What Does This Important Study Show? 

The ACCOMPLISH trial sought to determine whether combination drug therapy with an ACE inhibitor and a CCB was superior to the combination of an ACE inhibitor and a thiazide diuretic for reducing cardiovascular events in high-risk hypertensive participants. ACCOMPLISH was a multicenter, international, double-blind, industry-sponsored study that randomized 11,506 participants to 1 of 2 treatment arms: benazepril plus amlodipine or benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. All enrolled patients had hypertension and were at high risk (including a history of coronary events, myocardial infarction, revascularization, stroke, impaired kidney function, peripheral artery disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, or diabetes) of cardiovascular events. In both arms, benazepril dose was titrated from 20 to 40 mg, and thereafter, amlodipine was increased from 5 to 10 mg or hydrochlorothiazide was increased from 12.5 to 25 mg to reach a target BP < 140/90 mm Hg (or < 130/80 mm Hg in participants with diabetes or kidney disease). The primary end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, or coronary revascularization. The final study cohort had a mean age of 68.4 years, 60.4% of participants had diabetes, and 6.1% had “renal disease” (defined as serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL in women or > 1.7 mg/dL in men or the presence of macroalbuminuria confirmed on 2 separate occasions). Mean follow-up was 35 months, and mean systolic and diastolic BPs after dose adjustments were 131.6/73.3 mm Hg in the benazepril-amlodipine arm versus 132.5/74.4 mm Hg in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide arm (a difference in systolic BP of 0.9 mm Hg and diastolic BP of 1.1 mm Hg). The trial was stopped early based on prespecified stopping rules because of a significant difference in cardiovascular events between the 2 treatment arms. The primary end point occurred in 9.6% of participants in the benazepril-amlodipine arm and 11.8% of participants in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide arm, representing an absolute risk reduction of 2.2 percentage points and a relative risk reduction of 19.6% (hazard ratio, 0.80; P < 0.001). The secondary end point of death from cardiovascular causes and nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke also showed a benefit with benazepril-amlodipine versus benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide. It is important to note that hospitalization for congestive heart failure was not a component of the primary or secondary end point; however, the addition of congestive heart failure events to the primary end point did not alter results. The cumulative rate of discontinuation of a study drug was similar between arms (28.8% and 31.2% in the benazepril-amlodipine and benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide arms, respectively). The most common reason for discontinuing the study drug was an adverse event, which occurred in 13.4% of participants in the benazepril-amlodipine arm and 14.3% of participants in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide arm. Although the occurrence of adverse events was similar between groups overall, peripheral edema appeared to occur more commonly in participants in the benazepril-amlodipine versus benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide arm (31.2% vs 13.4%, respectively).

Back to Article Outline

How Does This Study Compare With Prior Studies? 

First, it is important to point out that in comparing ACCOMPLISH with prior trials, one must keep in mind the unique design of ACCOMPLISH, in particular, the use of a combination pill. The key objective of ACCOMPLISH was to determine whether CCBs added to an ACE inhibitor versus a thiazide added to an ACE inhibitor would be superior. No other studies have made such a comparison. In contrast to ACCOMPLISH, previous studies comparing CCBs with other antihypertensive agents have failed to show differences in cardiovascular outcomes when equal BPs were achieved in each arm (examples include STOP-2, INVEST, and INSIGHT; Table 1). STOP-2 (Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2) was an open-label blinded end-point trial that compared diuretics/β-blockers with ACE inhibitors or CCBs in 6,614 elderly hypertensive patients. Achieved BP was ∼159/80 mm Hg in all arms of the study, and there was no difference among the 3 groups for the composite end point of fatal stroke, fatal myocardial infarction, and other fatal cardiovascular disease.10 INVEST (International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study) compared verapamil with atenolol (with add on of trandolapril and/or hydrochlorothiazide) in 22,576 patients with hypertension and coronary heart disease.11 Achieved BPs were similar between groups throughout the study; however, there was no difference in the primary outcome (composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) between participants randomized to verapamil versus atenolol. INSIGHT (Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment) was a double-blind randomized trial of 6,321 hypertensive patients with at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor assigned to nifedipine or hydrochlorothiazide/amiloride.12 BP control was similar between groups, and there was no difference between groups in the primary end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, or stroke. However, fatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal heart failure occurred more frequently in the nifedipine arm.

Table 1. Summary of Clinical Trials Comparing Calcium Channel Blockers With Other Agents
StudyDesignInterventionPatient PopulationPrimary OutcomeAchieved BP or BP Reduction (mm Hg)Results of Primary End Point
STOP-210Open-label RCTDiuretics/β-blockers vs ACEi vs CCB6,614 Patients (70-84 y) with HTNFatal stroke, fatal MI, or other CV disease158/81 vs 159/81 vs 159/80No difference
INVEST11Open-label RCTVerapamil ± trandolapril vs atenolol ± HCTZ22,576 Patients with HTN & CADDeath, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal strokeDecrease in systolic BP of 18.7 vs 19.0No difference
INSIGHT12Double-blind RCTNifedipine vs HCTZ/amiloride6,321 Patients (55-80 y) with HTN & at least 1 CV risk factorCV death, MI, heart failure, or stroke138/82 in both armsNo difference
NORDIL14Open-label RCTDiltiazem vs β-blockers vs β-blocker/diuretic10,881 Patients (50-74 y) with HTNFatal and nonfatal stroke, fatal and nonfatal MI, or other CV death155/89 vs 152/89No difference
ALLHAT7Double-blind RCTChlorthalidone vs amlodipine vs lisinopril33,357 Patients with HTN & at least 1 CHD risk factorFatal CHD or nonfatal MISystolic BP of 133.9 vs 134.7 vs 135.9No difference
VALUE14Double-blind RCTValsartan vs amlodipine15,245 Patients with HTN & high CV riskFatal and nonfatal heart failure, MI, and cardiac interventionsSystolic BP of 139.3 vs 137.5No difference
ASCOT-BPLA15Open-label RCTAmlodipine + perindopril vs atenolol + diuretic19,257 Patients with HTN & at least 3 other CV risk factorsNonfatal MI and fatal CHDSystolic BP of 136.1 vs 137.7No difference, but study stopped early due to higher death in atenolol arm

Abbreviations: ACEi, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ALLHAT, Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering to Prevent Heart Attack Trial; ASCOT-BPLA, Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial–Blood Pressure Lowering Arm trial; BP, blood pressure; CAD, coronary artery disease; CCB, calcium channel blocker; CHD, coronary heart disease; CV, cardiovascular; HCTZ, hydrochlorothiazide; HTN, hypertension; INVEST, International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study; INSIGHT, Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment study; MI, myocardial infarction; NORDIL, Nordic Diltiazem study; RCT, randomized controlled trial; STOP-2, Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2; VALUE, Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation trial.

In studies in which achieved BP was higher with CCBs versus other agents, cardiovascular outcomes were either equivalent or worse with CCBs (examples include ALLHAT and the Nordic Diltiazem [NORDIL] Study, see Table 1). The NORDIL trial compared diltiazem with a combination of diuretic/β-blocker in 10,916 hypertensive participants.13 The BP achieved during the study despite adding on other antihypertensive agents was higher in the diltiazem group (155/89 vs 152/89 mm Hg), and there was no difference in the primary end point of cardiovascular events between groups. ALLHAT compared chlorthalidone with amlodipine and lisinopril in 33,357 hypertensive patients with at least 1 coronary heart disease risk factor.7 Achieved BP was higher in participants treated with amlodipine (0.8 mm Hg) and lisinopril (2.0 mm Hg) compared with participants treated with chlorthalidone. There was no difference in the primary end point of cardiovascular events among the 3 arms. However, there was a higher rate of congestive heart failure with amlodipine versus diuretic.

Trials that achieved better BP control with CCBs versus other agents have shown similar or better cardiovascular outcomes with CCBs (examples include VALUE and ASCOT). The VALUE (Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation) trial was a double-blind randomized industry-sponsored trial comparing valsartan with amlodipine in 15,245 hypertensive participants at high cardiovascular risk.14 There was no difference in the primary composite end point of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events, including heart failure, myocardial infarction, and cardiac interventions. BP control was better in the amlodipine arm (by 2-4 mm Hg systolic), and secondary end points that included stroke and myocardial infarction were lower in the amlodipine versus valsartan arm. ASCOT-BPLA (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial–Blood Pressure Lowering Arm) was a randomized open-label industry-sponsored study of amlodipine with or without perindopril versus atenolol with or without diuretic in 19,257 patients with hypertension and at least 3 other cardiovascular risk factors.15 Systolic BP was 2.7 mm Hg lower with an amlodipine-based regimen versus atenolol-based regimens, and the trial was stopped early because of higher mortality with the atenolol-diuretic regimen. Although there was no difference in the primary end point of nonfatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease after final data analysis, the amlodipine-perindopril arm had decreased cumulative incidences of stroke, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality. However, secondary analyses of VALUE and ASCOT-BPLA suggest that differences in clinical outcomes in these studies were attributed partially to differences in BPs between treatment arms.16, 17

Back to Article Outline

What Should Clinicians and Researchers Do? 

ACCOMPLISH is the first large-scale outcome trial to show a beneficial effect of the combination of an ACE inhibitor and a CCB compared with an ACE inhibitor and a thiazide diuretic in high-risk hypertensive participants. The findings from this unique study strongly suggest that for those who are candidates for multiple antihypertensive agent treatment, the ACE-inhibitor/CCB combination is a very reasonable, if not preferable, first choice. Prior studies did not directly compare combinations of an ACE inhibitor with either a CCB or thiazide diuretic. Prior studies (STOP-2, INVEST, ALLHAT, INSIGHT, and NORDIL) that compared CCB with non-CCB therapy did not find a benefit with CCBs over other agents when similar or higher BP was achieved with CCBs versus non-CCBs. However, ASCOT, the VALUE trial, and the ACCOMPLISH study showed somewhat better BP control with CCB-based regimens and subsequent improvement in cardiovascular outcomes. In light of these trials and meta-analyses of these trials,3, 6 it is evident that the initial choice of a single antihypertensive agent is less important than the ability to achieve target BP in an individual patient. Considering this, the American Heart Association, European Society of Hypertension, and European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of hypertension agree that thiazide diuretics, β-blockers, CCBs, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers can adequately decrease BP and reduce cardiovascular outcomes, and all are suitable for the initiation and maintenance of antihypertensive treatment either as monotherapy or in combination.18, 19 Whether the ACCOMPLISH trial results will influence future recommendations for BP lowering in high-risk hypertensive patients when more than 1 agent is needed to achieve the BP goal remains to be determined.

Although none of the reviewed trials had a high proportion of patients with chronic kidney disease, results from multidrug combination studies are particularly relevant in this population given the increased number of antihypertensive agents required to control BP. Considering that ACCOMPLISH and other studies showed favorable BP control with the use of CCBs, an initial choice of an ACE inhibitor/CCB is a good therapeutic option with the caveat that often diuretics also are required to control BP in patients with advanced stages of chronic kidney disease. An analysis of BP control and kidney function in the subgroup of ACCOMPLISH trial participants with chronic kidney disease at entry might inform future clinical practice guidelines for the management of hypertension in chronic kidney disease.

In summary, adequate control of BP remains an important means toward decreasing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk individuals. Choice of antihypertensive therapy should continue to be individualized and tailored toward balancing maximal BP control with encouraging patient adherence to treatment regimens and minimizing unfavorable side effects.

Back to Article Outline

Acknowledgements 

Financial Disclosure: None.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, et al. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet. 2005;365(9455):217–223
  2. Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, et al. Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborating Group Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet. 2002;360(9343):1347–1360
  3. Turnbull F, Neal B, Algert C, et al. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration Effects of different blood pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events in individuals with and without diabetes mellitus: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(12):1410–1419
  4. Neal B, MacMahon S, Chapman N Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood-pressure-lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomised trials (Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration). Lancet. 2000;356(9246):1955–1964
  5. Gueyffier F, Boutitie F, Boissel JP, et al. Effect of antihypertensive drug treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in women and men (A meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized, controlled trials. The INDANA Investigators). Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(10):761–767
  6. Turnbull F, Neal B, Ninomiya T, et al. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration Effects of different regimens to lower blood pressure on major cardiovascular events in older and younger adults: meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1121–1123
  7. ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. 2002;288(23):2981–2997
  8. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: The JNC 7 Report. JAMA. 2003;289(19):2560–2572
  9. Jamerson K, Weber MA, Bakris GL, et al. ACCOMPLISH Trial Investigators Benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(23):2417–2428
  10. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Ekbom T, et al. Randomised trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and morbidity the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2 study. Lancet. 1999;354(9192):1751–1756
  11. Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, et al. INVEST Investigators 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). JAMA. 2003;290(21):2805–2816
  12. Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A, et al. 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). Lancet. 2000;356(9227):366–372
  13. Hansson L, Hedner T, Lund-Johansen P, et al. 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. Lancet. 2000;356(9227):359–365
  14. Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, et al. VALUE Trial Group Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363(9426):2022–2031
  15. Dahlöf B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, et al. ASCOT Investigators 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. Lancet. 2005;366(9489):895–906
  16. Weber MA, Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, et al. Blood pressure dependent and independent effects of antihypertensive treatment on clinical events in the VALUE Trial. Lancet. 2004;363(9426):2049–2051
  17. Poulter NR, Wedel H, Dahlöf B, et al. ASCOT Investigators Role of blood pressure and other variables in the differential cardiovascular event rates noted in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA). Lancet. 2005;366(9489):907–913
  18. Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, et al. 2007 Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2007;28(12):1462–1536
  19. Rosendorff C, Black HR, Cannon CP, et al. Treatment of hypertension in the prevention and management of ischemic heart disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council for High Blood Pressure Research and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology and Epidemiology and Prevention. Circulation. 2007;115(21):2761–2788

 Originally published online as doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.08.003 on October 23, 2009.

PII: S0272-6386(09)01048-8

doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.08.003

American Journal of Kidney Diseases
Volume 54, Issue 6 , Pages 1000-1004, December 2009

Article Tools