Effects of valsartan compared to amlodipine on preventing type 2 diabetes in high-risk hypertensive patients: the VALUE trial.

CONTEXT: Type 2 diabetes is emerging as a major health problem, which tends to cluster with hypertension in individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: To test for the first time the hypothesis that treatment of hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk with the angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) valsartan prevents new-onset type 2 diabetes compared with the metabolically neutral calcium-channel antagonist (CCA) amlodipine. DESIGN: Pre-specified analysis in the VALUE trial. Follow-up averaged 4.2 years. The risk of developing new diabetes was calculated as an odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for different definitions of diabetes. PATIENTS: A sample of 9995 high-risk, non-diabetic hypertensive patients. INTERVENTIONS: Valsartan or amlodipine with or without add-on medication [hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and other add-ons, excluding other ARBs, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCAs]. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: New diabetes defined as an adverse event, new blood-glucose-lowering drugs and/or fasting glucose > 7.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: New diabetes was reported in 580 (11.5%) patients on valsartan and in 718 (14.5%) patients on amlodipine (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.87, P < 0.0001). Using stricter criteria (without adverse event reports) new diabetes was detected in 495 (9.8%) patients on valsartan and in 586 (11.8%) on amlodipine (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.93, P = 0.0015). CONCLUSION: Compared with amlodipine, valsartan reduces the risk of developing diabetes mellitus in high-risk hypertensive patients.

Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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). INTERPRETATION: 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.

Blood pressure dependent and independent effects of antihypertensive treatment on clinical events in the VALUE Trial.

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test whether, for the same achieved blood pressures, regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine would have differing effects on cardiovascular endpoints in high risk hypertension. But inequalities in blood pressure, favouring amlodipine, throughout the multiyear trial precluded comparison of outcomes. A technique of serial median matching, applied at 6 months when treatment adjustments intended to achieve control of blood pressure were complete, created 5006 valsartan-amlodipine patient pairs matched exactly for systolic blood pressure, age, sex, and the presence or absence of previous coronary disease, stroke, or diabetes. Subsequent combined cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality were almost identical in the two cohorts, but admission to hospital for heart failure was significantly lower with valsartan. Reaching blood pressure control (systolic <140 mm Hg) by 6 months, independent of drug type, was associated with significant benefits for subsequent major outcomes; the blood pressure response after just 1 month of treatment predicted events and survival.

VALUE trial: Long-term blood pressure trends in 13,449 patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND: The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) study compares cardiovascular outcomes in 15,314 eligible patients from 31 countries randomized to valsartan or amlodipine-based treatment. METHODS: The blood pressure (BP) trends are analyzed in 13,449 of VALUE study patients who had baseline BP and 24 months BP and treatment data. RESULTS: In a cohort of 12,570 patients, baseline 24 and 30 months BP, but not 30 months treatment data, were available. Of 13,449 patients, 92% (N = 12,398) received antihypertensive therapy at baseline. The baseline BP was 153.5/86.9 mm Hg in treated compared to 168.1.8/95.3 mm Hg in 1051 untreated patients. After 6 months both groups had indistinguishable BP values. At 12 months the BP decreased to 141.2/82.9 mm Hg (P <.0001 for systolic BP and diastolic BP versus baseline), at 24 months to 139.1/80 mm Hg (P <.0001 v 12 months), and to 138/79 mm Hg at 30 months (P <.0001 v 24 months). The systolic BP control (<140 mm Hg) at 30 months increased from 21.9% at baseline to 62.2%, the diastolic BP (< 90 mm Hg) from 54.2% to 90.2% and the combined control (<140 and <90 mm Hg) from 18.9% to 60.5%. At 24 months 85.8% of patients were on protocol drugs: monotherapy = 39.7%, added hydrochlorothiazide = 26.6%, add-on drugs = 15.1%, and protocol drugs in nonstandard doses = 4.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The achieved BP control exceeds values reported in most published large-scale trials. The VALUE study is executed in regular clinical settings and 92% of the patients received antihypertensive drugs at baseline. When an explicit BP goal is set, and a treatment algorithm is provided, the physicians can achieve better control rates than in their regular practice.