Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations.

The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors.

To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin.

The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic.

Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as:

- accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability,

- diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician,

- individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences,

- difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders,

- pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless,

- the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs.

The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II).

A tremendous amount of scientific evidence regarding the physiology and physiopathology of high blood pressure combined with a sophisticated therapeutic arsenal is at the disposal of the medical community to counteract the overall public health burden of hypertension. Ample evidence has also been gathered from a multitude of large-scale randomized trials indicating the beneficial effects of current treatment strategies in terms of reduced hypertension-related morbidity and mortality.

In spite of these impressive advances and, deeply disappointingly from a public health perspective, the real picture of hypertension management is overshadowed by widespread diagnostic inaccuracies (underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis) as well as by treatment failures generated by undertreatment, overtreatment, and misuse of medications.

The scientific, medical and patient communities as well as decision-makers worldwide are striving for greatest possible health gains from available resources.

A seemingly well-crystallised reasoning is that comprehensive strategic approaches must not only target hypertension as a pathological entity, but rather, take into account the wider environment in which hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease carrying a great deal of our inheritance, and its interplay in the constellation of other, well-known, modifiable risk factors, i.e., attention is to be switched from one's "blood pressure level" to one's absolute cardiovascular risk and its determinants. Likewise, a risk/benefit assessment in each individual case is required in order to achieve best possible results.

Nevertheless, it is of paramount importance to insure generalizability of ABPM use in clinical practice with the aim of improving the accuracy of a first diagnosis for both individual treatment and clinical research purposes. Widespread adoption of the method requires quick adjustment of current guidelines, development of appropriate technology infrastructure and training of staff (i.e., education, decision support, and information systems for practitioners and patients). Progress can be achieved in a few years, or in the next 25 years.

PROSPER was designed to investigate the benefits of treatment with pravastatin in elderly patients for whom a typical doctor might consider the prescription of statin therapy to be a realistic option. The PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER) is a randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial to test the hypothesis that treatment with pravastatin (40 mg/day) will reduce the risk of coronary heart disease death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and fatal or non-fatal stroke in elderly men and women with pre-existing vascular disease or with significant risk of developing this condition. In Scotland, Ireland, and the Netherlands, 23,770 individuals were screened, and 5,804 subjects (2,804 men and 3,000 women), aged 70 to 82 years (average 75 years) and with baseline cholesterol 4.0–9.0 mmol/l, were randomised. Randomised subjects had similar distributions with respect to age, blood pressure, and body mass index when compared to the entire group of screenees, but had a higher prevalence of smoking, diabetes, hypertension, and a history of vascular disease. The average total cholesterol level at baseline was 5.4 mmol/l (men) and 6.0 mmol/l (women). Compared with previous prevention trials of cholesterol-lowering drugs, the PROSPER cohort is significantly older and for the first time includes a majority of women. The study, having achieved its initial goal of recruiting more than 5,500 elderly high-risk men and women, aims to complete all final subject follow-up visits in the first half of 2002 with the main results being available in the fourth quarter of 2002.

Saphenous vein graft disease remains a major limitation of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The process of saphenous vein intimal hyperplasia begins just days after surgical revascularization, setting the stage for graft atherosclerotic disease and its sequalae. Clopidogrel improves outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic disease, and is effective at reducing intimal hyperplasia in animal models of thrombosis. Therefore, the goal of this study will be to evaluate the efficacy of clopidogrel and aspirin therapy versus aspirin alone in the prevention of saphenous vein graft intimal hyperplasia following coronary artery bypass surgery. Patients undergoing multi-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting and in whom at least two saphenous vein grafts will be used are eligible for the study. Patients will be randomized to receive daily clopidogrel 75 mg or placebo, in addition to daily aspirin 162 mg, for a one year duration starting on the day of surgery (as soon as postoperative bleeding has been excluded). At the end of one year, all patients will undergo coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound assessment of one saphenous vein graft as selected by randomization. The trial will be powered to test the hypothesis that clopidogrel and aspirin will reduce vein graft intimal hyperplasia by 20% compared to aspirin alone at one year following bypass surgery. This trial is the first prospective human study that will address the question of whether clopidogrel therapy improves outcomes and reduces saphenous vein graft intimal hyperplasia following cardiac surgery. Should the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin reduce the process of vein graft intimal hyperplasia, the results of this study will help redefine modern antiplatelet management of coronary artery bypass patients.

The high incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) is related to the accumulation of uremic toxins in the middle and large-middle molecular weight range. As online hemodiafiltration (HDF) removes these molecules more effectively than standard hemodialysis (HD), it has been suggested that online HDF improves survival and cardiovascular outcome. Thus far, no conclusive data of HDF on target organ damage and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are available. Therefore, the CONvective TRAnsport STudy (CONTRAST) has been initiated. CONTRAST is a Dutch multi-center randomised controlled trial. In this trial, approximately 800 chronic hemodialysis patients will be randomised between online HDF and low-flux HD, and followed for three years. The primary endpoint is all cause mortality. The main secondary outcome variables are fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events. The study is designed to provide conclusive evidence whether online HDF leads to a lower mortality and less cardiovascular events as compared to standard HD.

Overweight older adults are often counseled to lose weight, even though there is little evidence of excess mortality in that age group. Overweight and underweight may be more associated with health status than with mortality, but few clinical trials of any kind have been based on maximizing years of healthy life (YHL), as opposed to years of life (YOL). This paper examines the relationship of body mass index (BMI) to both YHL and YOL. Results were used to determine whether clinical trials of weight-modification based on improving YHL would be more powerful than studies based on survival. We used data from a cohort of 4,878 non-smoking men and women aged 65–100 at baseline (mean age 73) and followed 7 years. We estimated mean YHL and YOL in four categories of BMI: underweight, normal, overweight, and obese. Subjects averaged 6.3 YOL and 4.6 YHL of a possible 7 years. Both measures were higher for women and whites. For men, none of the BMI groups was significantly different from the normal group on either YOL or YHL. For women, the obese had significantly lower YHL (but not YOL) than the normals, and the underweight had significantly lower YOL and YHL. The overweight group was not significantly different from the normal group on either measure. Clinical trials of weight loss interventions for obese older women would require fewer participants if YHL rather than YOL was the outcome measure. Interventions for obese men or for the merely overweight are not likely to achieve differences in either YOL or YHL. Evaluations of interventions for the underweight (which would presumably address the causes of their low weight) may be conducted efficiently using either outcome measure.

Results from the recent Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH)-Sodium trial provide the latest evidence concerning the effects of dietary patterns and sodium intake on blood pressure. Participants ate either the DASH diet (high in fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy products, and reduced in saturated and total fat) or a typical US diet. Within each diet arm, participants ate higher, intermediate, and lower sodium levels, each for 30 days. The results indicated lower blood pressure with lower sodium intake for both diet groups. Although some critics would argue otherwise, these findings provide important new evidence for the value of the DASH diet and sodium reduction in controlling blood pressure.

Doxazosin and its role as an antihypertensive agent have come under recent scrutiny as a result of the early termination of that treatment arm in ALLHAT. It is unclear why the cardiovascular (CV) event rate in this randomized, controlled trial (RCT), especially heart failure, is higher in those treated with a doxazosin-based regimen than with a chlorthalidone based-regimen. There has been little work in the past to summarize information on peripheral alpha-1 antagonists that may be helpful in evaluating the results of this randomized controlled trial. Using Medline and the Cochrane databases, we performed a comprehensive review of the literature on the use of peripheral alpha-1 antagonists as antihypertensive agents, focusing on available information that could explain the excess cardiovascular events observed in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Minimal data were available concerning the effects of peripheral alpha-1 antagonists on CV endpoints. A multitude of short-term studies-ranging from small observational studies to short-term moderate-sized RCTs – focused on safety, efficacy, and tolerability, and some studies investigated the physiologic effects of these agents. These previously reported studies reveal associations with weight gain, fluid retention, and neurohormonal changes among various populations of those treated with peripheral alpha-1 antagonists. These findings suggest several possible mechanisms by which doxazosin may be inferior to low-dose diuretics as antihypertensive therapy for the prevention of heart failure.