Comparative transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) and Delta (B.1.617.2) variants and the impact of vaccination: national cohort study, England

BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) has rapidly replaced the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) to become dominant in England. This epidemiological study assessed differences in transmissibility between the Omicron and Delta using two methods and data sources. MethodsOmicron and Delta cases were identified through genomic sequencing, genotyping and S-gene target failure in England from 5-11 December 2021. Secondary attack rates for Omicron and Delta using named contacts and household clustering were calculated using national surveillance and contact tracing data. We used multivariable logistic regression was used to control for factors associated with transmission. FindingsAnalysis of contact tracing data identified elevated secondary attack rates for Omicron vs Delta in household (15.0% vs 10.8%) and non-household (8.2% vs 3.7%) settings. The proportion of index cases resulting in residential clustering was twice as high for Omicron (16.1%) compared to Delta (7.3%). Transmission was significantly less likely from cases, or in named contacts, in receipt of three compared to two vaccine doses in household settings, but less pronounced for Omicron (aRR 0.78 and 0.88) compared to Delta (aRR 0.62 and 0.68). In non-household settings, a similar reduction was observed for Delta cases and contacts (aRR 0.84 and 0.51) but only for Omicron contacts (aRR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.58-0.93) and not cases in receipt of three vs two doses (aRR 0.95, 0.77-1.16). InterpretationOur study identified increased risk of onward transmission of Omicron, consistent with its successful global displacement of Delta. We identified a reduced effectiveness of vaccination in lowering risk of transmission, a likely contributor for the rapid propagation of Omicron. FundingStudy funded by the UK Health Security Agency.

Rationale and study design of the Prospective comparison of Angiotensin Receptor neprilysin inhibitor with Angiotensin receptor blocker MEasuring arterial sTiffness in the eldERly (PARAMETER) study.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension in elderly people is characterised by elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) and increased pulse pressure (PP), which indicate large artery ageing and stiffness. LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), is being developed to treat hypertension and heart failure. The Prospective comparison of Angiotensin Receptor neprilysin inhibitor with Angiotensin receptor blocker MEasuring arterial sTiffness in the eldERly (PARAMETER) study will assess the efficacy of LCZ696 versus olmesartan on aortic stiffness and central aortic haemodynamics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this 52-week multicentre study, patients with hypertension aged ≥60 years with a mean sitting (ms) SBP ≥150 to <180 and a PP>60 mm Hg will be randomised to once daily LCZ696 200 mg or olmesartan 20 mg for 4 weeks, followed by a forced-titration to double the initial doses for the next 8 weeks. At 12-24 weeks, if the BP target has not been attained (msSBP <140 and ms diastolic BP <90 mm Hg), amlodipine (2.5-5 mg) and subsequently hydrochlorothiazide (6.25-25 mg) can be added. The primary and secondary endpoints are changes from baseline in central aortic systolic pressure (CASP) and central aortic PP (CAPP) at week 12, respectively. Other secondary endpoints are the changes in CASP and CAPP at week 52. A sample size of 432 randomised patients is estimated to ensure a power of 90% to assess the superiority of LCZ696 over olmesartan at week 12 in the change from baseline of mean CASP, assuming an SD of 19 mm Hg, the difference of 6.5 mm Hg and a 15% dropout rate. The primary variable will be analysed using a two-way analysis of covariance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was initiated in December 2012 and final results are expected in 2015. The results of this study will impact the design of future phase III studies assessing cardiovascular protection. CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER: EUDract number 2012-002899-14 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01692301.

Comparison of benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide in high-risk patients with hypertension and coronary artery disease.

Combination therapy with benazepril 40 mg and amlodipine 10 mg (B+A) has been shown to be more effective than benazepril 40 mg and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg (B+H) in reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in high-risk patients with stage 2 hypertension with similar blood pressure reductions. In the present post hoc analysis, we evaluated whether B+A is more effective than B+H for reducing CV events in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD) at baseline in a subgroup analysis of the Avoiding Cardiovascular events through COMbination therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) study. The main trial randomized 11,506 patients. Of those, 5,744 received B+A and 5,762 received B+H. Of the 11,506 patients, 5,314 (46%) were classified as having CAD at baseline. The mean patient follow-up period was 35.7 months for the B+A group and 35.6 months for the B+H group. The primary end point was the interval to the first event of composite CV morbidity and mortality. At baseline, significant differences were present between the 5,314 with CAD and the 6,192 without CAD. The patients with CAD had a lower systolic blood pressure and heart rate, a lower incidence of diabetes, and greater incidence of dyslipidemia. However, no baseline differences were found between the randomized B+A and B+H groups. In the patients with CAD, an 18% reduction occurred in the hazard ratio for CV events (primary end point) with B+A versus B+H (p = 0.0016). In a prespecified secondary analysis of the composite end point, including only CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, the hazard ratio in the patients with CAD was reduced by 25% (p = 0.0033) in the B+A group compared with the B+H group. B+A was more effective than B+H at comparable blood pressure reductions for reducing CV events in patients, regardless of the presence of CAD. In conclusion, our findings suggest that the combination of B+A should be preferentially used for older patients with high-risk, stage 2 hypertension.

Systolic blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes during treatment of hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials in hypertension demonstrate cardiovascular benefits when systolic blood pressures are reduced from higher values to<160 mm Hg. The value of lower targets has not been fully defined, although major guidelines recommend achieving systolic blood pressures of<140 mm Hg. This study was conducted to explore cardiovascular outcomes at differing on-treatment blood pressure levels. METHODS: On the basis of a prespecified plan to explore relationships between clinical outcomes and systolic blood pressures, the pooled cohort of high-risk hypertensive patients (N=10,705) in the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension trial were divided into 4 strata of systolic blood pressure levels: >140 mm Hg, 130 to <140 mm Hg, 120 to <130 mm Hg, and 110 to <120 mm Hg. The primary end point was cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke. Outcomes comparisons between the blood pressure groups were by Cox regression. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 68 years, and the study duration was 35.7 months. The primary end point occurred in 171 of 3429 patients (5.0%) with systolic blood pressure in the 10 mm Hg range<140 and in 179 of 2354 patients (7.6%) with systolic blood pressure≥140 mm Hg (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.77; P=.0001). Likewise, cardiovascular death decreased by 36% (P=.0147), total myocardial infarction (fatal+nonfatal) decreased by 37% (P=.0028), and stroke decreased by 47% (P=.0002). Cardiovascular event rates in those with systolic blood pressure<130 mm Hg were not different from those with systolic blood pressure<140 mm Hg. However, compared with systolic blood pressure<130 mm Hg, stroke incidence in those with systolic blood pressure<120 mm Hg was lower (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35-1.01; P=.0529), but myocardial function was higher (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.00-2.29; P=.0437), as were composite coronary events (myocardial infarction, hospitalized angina, or sudden death) (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.18-2.24; P=.0023). The renal end point of a sustained>50% increase in serum creatinine was significantly lower in those with systolic blood pressure<140 mm Hg than in any of the other higher or lower blood pressure ranges. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk hypertensive patients, major cardiovascular events are significantly lower in those with systolic blood pressures<140 mm Hg and<130 mm Hg than in those with levels>140 mm Hg. There are stroke benefits at levels<120 mm Hg, but they are offset by increased coronary events. Renal function is best protected in the 130 to 139 mm Hg range.

Left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, remodelling, and clinical outcomes among patients with diabetes following myocardial infarction and the influence of direct renin inhibition with aliskiren.

AIMS: We assessed the relationship between diabetes and cardiac structure and function following myocardial infarction (MI) and whether diabetes influences the effect of direct renin inhibition on change in left ventricular (LV) size. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ASPIRE trial enrolled 820 patients 2-8 weeks after MI with ejection fraction ≤ 45% and randomized them to the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren (n= 423) or placebo (n = 397) added to standard medical therapy. Echocardiography was performed at baseline and after 36 weeks in 672 patients with evaluable paired studies. Compared with non-diabetic patients, diabetic patients (n = 214) were at higher risk for a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, heart failure hospitalization, recurrent MI, stroke, or aborted sudden death (14 vs. 7%; adjusted hazard ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.64, P= 0.045), despite similar left ventricular ejection fraction (37.9 ± 5.3 vs. 37.6 ± 5.2%, P= 0.48) and end-systolic volume (ESV) (84 ± 25 vs. 82 ± 28 mL, P= 0.46). Diabetic patients demonstrated greater concentric remodelling (relative wall thickness 0.38 ± 0.07 vs. 0.36 ± 0.07, P= 0.0002) and evidence of higher LV filling pressure (E/E' 11.1 ± 5.3 vs. 9.1 ± 4.3, P= 0.0011). At 36 weeks, diabetic patients experienced similar per cent reduction in ESV overall (-4.9 ± 17.9 vs. -5.5 ± 16.9, P= 0.67) but tended to experience greater reduction in ESV than non-diabetic patients when treated with aliskiren (interaction P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with non-diabetic patients, diabetic patients are at increased risk of CV events post-MI despite no greater LV enlargement or reduction in systolic function. Diabetic patients demonstrate greater concentric remodelling and evidence of higher LV filling pressure, suggesting diastolic dysfunction as a potential mechanism for the higher risk observed among these patients.

Predictors of systolic BP <140 mmHg and systolic BP level by randomly assigned treatment group (benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide) in the ACCOMPLISH Study.

BACKGROUND: The ACCOMPLISH Trial investigated intensive antihypertensive combination treatment with benazepril + amlodipine (B+A) or benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide (B+H) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with systolic hypertension. We analyzed the baseline predictors of achieving a systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mmHg and achieved SBP level by the end of 12 months in both treatment groups. METHODS: Baseline and 12-month SBP was available in 10,506 patients, of whom 6250 had diabetes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used for SBP control at 12 months and multivariable regression models were used for the prediction of SBP at 12 months. A stepwise procedure was used to select significant (p < 0.001) predictors in multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Mean (± SD) BP fell from 145.4/80.1 (± 18.3/10.7) mmHg at randomization to 132.8/74.7 (± 16.0/9.6) mmHg at 12 months. The main baseline predictors of SBP control <140 mmHg were region (USA >Nordic region) and Caucasian ethnicity in both randomization arms. A higher diastolic BP and the use of lipid lowering agents indicated favorable effects in the B+H arm only. The predictors of uncontrolled SBP were: (i) higher baseline SBP values, (ii) higher number of previous antihypertensive medications in both arms, (iii) the previous use of insulin in the B+A arm, and (iv) pre-trial calcium channel blocker (CCB) use in the B+H arm. Additionally, pre-trial use of thiazides and electrocardiogram (ECG)-left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) at baseline predicted higher, and smoking lower absolute SBP in the B+A arm and the use of thiazides and proteinuria a higher SBP in the B+H arm. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of treatment, patients in the USA and Caucasians achieved better SBP control, whereas higher baseline SBP and more previous antihypertensive medications indicated less control. Concomitant use of lipid lowering treatment indicated a better SBP control in the benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide arm. Lastly, insulin use and ECG-LVH in the benazepril + amlodipine arm and proteinuria in the benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide arm indicated poor control.

Effect of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren on left ventricular remodelling following myocardial infarction with systolic dysfunction.

AIMS: Direct renin inhibitors provide an alternative approach to inhibiting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) at the most proximal, specific, and rate-limiting step. We tested the hypothesis that direct renin inhibition would attenuate left ventricular remodelling in patients following acute myocardial infarction receiving stable, individually optimized therapy, including another inhibitor of the RAAS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 820 patients between ∼2 and 8 weeks following acute myocardial infarction, with the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤45%, and regional wall motion abnormalities (≥20% akinetic area), to receive aliskiren (n = 423), titrated to 300 mg, or matched placebo (n = 397), added to the standard therapy. All patients were required to be on a stable dose of an ACE-inhibitor or ARB, and beta-blocker unless contraindicated or not tolerated. Echocardiograms were obtained at baseline, and following 26-36 weeks of treatment. The primary endpoint was change in left ventricular end-systolic volume from baseline to 36 weeks, and was evaluable in 329 patients in the placebo group and 343 patients in the aliskiren group. We observed no difference in the primary endpoint of end-systolic volume change between patients randomized to aliskiren (-4.4 ± 16.8 mL) or placebo (-3.5 ± 16.3 mL), or in secondary measures of end-diastolic volume, or LVEF. We also observed no differences in a composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or reduction in LVEF >6 points. There were more investigator reported adverse events in the aliskiren group, including hypotension, increases in creatinine and hyperkalaemia. CONCLUSION: Adding the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren to the standard therapy, including an inhibitor of the RAAS, in high-risk post-MI patients did not result in further attenuation of left ventricular remodelling, and was associated with more adverse effects. These findings do not suggest that dual RAAS blockade with aliskiren would provide additional benefit in these high-risk post-MI patients.

Efficacy and duration of benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide on 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure control.

The combination of benazepril plus amlodipine was shown to be more effective than benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in reducing cardiovascular events in the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial. There was a small difference in clinic systolic blood pressure between the treatment arms favoring benazepril plus amlodipine. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring provides a more rigorous estimate of blood pressure effects. A subset of 573 subjects underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring during year 2. Readings were obtained every 20 minutes during a 24-hour period. Between-treatment differences (benazepril plus amlodipine versus benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide) in mean values were analyzed using ANOVA. Treatment comparisons with respect to categorical variables were made using Pearson's χ². At year 2, the treatment groups did not differ significantly in 24-hour mean daytime or nighttime blood pressures (values of 123.9, 125.9, and 118.1 mm Hg for benazepril plus amlodipine group versus 122.3, 124.1, and 116.9 for the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group), with mean between-group differences of 1.6, 1.8, and 1.2 mm Hg, respectively. Blood pressure control rates (24-hour mean systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring) were greater than 80% in both groups. Nighttime systolic blood pressure provided additional risk prediction after adjusting for the effects of drugs. The 24-hour blood pressure control was similar in both treatment arms, supporting the interpretation that the difference in cardiovascular outcomes favoring a renin angiotensin system blocker combined with amlodipine rather than hydrochlorothiazide shown in the ACCOMPLISH trial was not caused by differences in blood pressure, but instead intrinsic properties (metabolic or hemodynamic) of the combination therapies.

Cardiovascular events during differing hypertension therapies in patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine which combination therapy in patients with hypertension and diabetes most effectively decreases cardiovascular events. BACKGROUND: The ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through COMbination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension) trial compared the outcomes effects of a renin-angiotensin system blocker, benazepril, combined with amlodipine (B+A) or hydrochlorothiazide (B+H). A separate analysis in diabetic patients was pre-specified. METHODS: A total of 6,946 patients with diabetes were randomized to treatment with B+A or B+H. A subgroup of 2,842 diabetic patients at very high risk (previous cardiovascular or stroke events) was also analyzed, as were 4,559 patients without diabetes. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitated arrest, and coronary revascularization. RESULTS: In the full diabetes group, the mean achieved blood pressures in the B+A and B+H groups were 131.5/72.6 and 132.7/73.7 mm Hg; during 30 months, there were 307 (8.8%) and 383 (11.0%) primary events (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 0.92, p = 0.003). For the diabetic patients at very high risk, there were 195 (13.6%) and 244 (17.3%) primary events (HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.93, p = 0.007). In the nondiabetic patients, there were 245 (10.8%) and 296 (12.9%) primary events (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.97, p = 0.020). In the diabetic patients, there were clear coronary benefits with B+A, including both acute clinical events (p = 0.013) and revascularizations (p = 0.024). There were no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes and hypertension, combining a renin-angiotensin system blocker with amlodipine, compared with hydrochlorothiazide, was superior in reducing cardiovascular events and could influence future management of hypertension in patients with diabetes. (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through COMbination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension [ACCOMPLISH]; NCT00170950).

The diabetes subgroup baseline characteristics of the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial.

The Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial is the first cardiovascular outcome trial designed to compare initial use of 2 different fixed-dose antihypertensive regimens, benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide vs benazepril plus amlodipine, on cardiovascular end points in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk secondary to previous major events or presence of diabetes mellitus (DM). Of the 11,464 patients, 60.4% had DM. Compared with non-DM patients, DM patients were less likely to have previous myocardial infarctions (15% vs 37%) or strokes (8% vs 21%). Those with DM were more likely to be female (43% vs 34%), black (15% vs 8%), overweight (body mass index, 32 vs 29 kg/m(2)). At baseline, DM patients were more likely to have the metabolic syndrome, manifested by higher levels of fasting glucose (145 vs 101 mg/dL) and triglycerides (178 vs 150 mg/dL) and slightly lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values (48 vs 51 mg/dL) compared to the non-DM cohort. Although estimated glomerular filtration rate (80 vs 76 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) was similar in the DM and non-DM groups, presence of both albuminuria (8.7% vs 3.5%) and microalbuminuria (29% vs 20%) were more prevalent in the DM group. After 6 months of treatment, blood pressure control rates (<140/90 mm Hg) using blinded data (both therapeutic groups combined) for DM demonstrated that 42.8% of DM patients had blood pressure levels <130/80 mm Hg. ACCOMPLISH will provide valuable guidance on optimizing treatment strategies in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk with and without DM.

Benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal combination drug therapy for hypertension is not established, although current U.S. guidelines recommend inclusion of a diuretic. We hypothesized that treatment with the combination of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker would be more effective in reducing the rate of cardiovascular events than treatment with an ACE inhibitor plus a thiazide diuretic. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 11,506 patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events to receive treatment with either benazepril plus amlodipine or benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. The primary end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitation after sudden cardiac arrest, and coronary revascularization. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. The trial was terminated early after a mean follow-up of 36 months, when the boundary of the prespecified stopping rule was exceeded. Mean blood pressures after dose adjustment were 131.6/73.3 mm Hg in the benazepril-amlodipine group and 132.5/74.4 mm Hg in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide group. There were 552 primary-outcome events in the benazepril-amlodipine group (9.6%) and 679 in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide group (11.8%), representing an absolute risk reduction with benazepril-amlodipine therapy of 2.2% and a relative risk reduction of 19.6% (hazard ratio, 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.90; P<0.001). For the secondary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke, the hazard ratio was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.92; P=0.002). Rates of adverse events were consistent with those observed from clinical experience with the study drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The benazepril-amlodipine combination was superior to the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide combination in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension who were at high risk for such events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00170950.)

Predictors of blood pressure response to intensified and fixed combination treatment of hypertension: the ACCOMPLISH study.

BACKGROUND: Avoiding Cardiovascular events through COMbination therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) is an outcome study investigating aggressive antihypertensive combination treatment. It has achieved a larger fraction of overall patients with blood pressure (BP) <140/90 mmHg (73.3%) and diabetic patients <130/80 mmHg (43.3%) at 12 months of follow-up than any other large outcomes trial. We have analyzed baseline predictors of BPs and BP control at 12 months. METHODS: Blinded baseline and 12-month BP was available in 10,173 patients of whom 6132 had diabetes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used for BP control at 12 months; simple and multiple regression models were used for absolute BP value at 12 months. A stepwise procedure was used to select significant predictors in multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Mean (SD) BP fell from 145.5/80.2 mmHg (18.2/10.7 mmHg) at randomization to 132.7/74.7 mmHg (16/9.6 mmHg) at 12 months. The main baseline predictors of achieving BP control were region (USA), Caucasian race and taking lipid-lowering drugs. The predictors of uncontrolled BP were higher baseline systolic BP values, more previous antihypertensive medications, proteinuria and previous thiazide use. CONCLUSION: Patients in the USA, Caucasians and patients taking lipid-lowering therapy were most likely to reach BP targets with combination therapy. Strong predictors of uncontrolled hypertension were more severe hypertension, an established need for more antihypertensive drugs and target organ damage.

Exceptional early blood pressure control rates: the ACCOMPLISH trial.

BACKGROUND: ACCOMPLISH is a "new-generation" hypertension trial assessing single-tablet combination therapy for initial treatment of high-risk hypertension. At baseline, 97% of subjects were treated with anti-hypertensive medication at entry, but only 37% of participants had blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mmHg). Single-tablet combination therapy may improve control rates. METHODS: The mean BP change from baseline at the end of 6 months (the time point when subjects should have had all of the drug titrations to achieve BP control) was examined for 10,704 randomized patients. Within-group changes were examined using t-tests. Comparisons between subgroups were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and covariance (ANCOVA). RESULTS: Mean (+/-SD) BP fell from 145+/-18/80+/-11 mmHg at randomization to 132+/-16/74+/-10 mmHg. The 6-month BP control rate was 73% in the overall trial (78% in the US), 43% in diabetics and 40% in patients with renal disease. Of the patients uncontrolled, 61% were not on maximal medications, suggesting potential increases in control rates. Serious hypotensive events occurred in 1.8% of participants. CONCLUSION: ACCOMPLISH BP control rates are the highest of any multi-national trial to date. Whereas current guidelines recommend combination therapy only for stage 2 hypertension, in this trial it is expedient and safe for both stage 1 and 2 hypertension.

Baseline characteristics in the Avoiding Cardiovascular events through Combination therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial: a hypertensive population at high cardiovascular risk.

ACCOMPLISH is the first trial designed to compare the effects on major fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular endpoints of two forms of antihypertensive combination therapy: benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine plus benazepril in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk. Enrollment for this trial is now complete and this report describes the clinical characteristics of the study cohort. Patients with hypertension and a previous history of cardiovascular events, strokes or diabetes mellitus were randomized to double-blind treatment with either of the two combination regimens. The data in this report detail the clinical history and demographic characteristics in patients immediately prior to randomization to study drugs. A total of 11,454 patients were randomized. Mean age (+/-SD) was 68.4+/-6.9 years, 60% were men, and 1360 (12%) were African American. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.0+/-6.3 kg/m(2). At study entry, 46% of patients had a history of acute coronary syndromes, coronary artery bypass grafts or percutaneous coronary interventions; 13% had a history of stroke. A history of diabetes mellitus was reported in 6928 (60%) of patients. Mean blood pressure at baseline (on prior hypertension therapy) was 145.4/80.0 mmHg; only 38% of patients had a BP less than 140/90 mmHg. Overall, 97% of patients had received previous antihypertensive treatment (74% on at least two drugs); 53% were on oral diabetes therapy or insulin, 68% on anti-lipid therapy and 63% on anti-platelet agents. In summary, the ACCOMPLISH trial has recruited hypertensive patients at high risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. It is noteworthy that the mean BMI of 31 in this cohort is clearly above the accepted diagnostic criterion of obesity and that 60% of patients are diabetic, possibly reflecting secular trends in clinical disease.

C-reactive protein in heart failure: prognostic value and the effect of valsartan.

BACKGROUND: The role of C-reactive protein (CRP) in heart failure is not well studied. We assessed the prognostic value of CRP in patients randomized in Val-HeFT (Valsartan Heart Failure Trial) and studied changes in CRP that were associated with valsartan. METHODS AND RESULTS: Characteristics of patients with baseline CRP levels above and below the median value were compared. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the relationship of CRP to mortality and morbidity. Interactions were tested to determine whether differences in CRP changes from baseline to 4 and 12 months between groups randomly assigned to valsartan or placebo depended on baseline ACE inhibitor use. Median plasma CRP was 3.23 mg/L (interquartile range 1.42 to 7.56 mg/L), which is higher than in the general population. Patients with CRP above the median had features of more severe heart failure than those with CRP levels below the median. The cumulative likelihood of death and first morbid event increased with increasing quartile of CRP. Relative to the lowest CRP quartile, the risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9) and first morbid event (hazard ratio 1.53, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.84) was increased in the highest CRP quartile in multivariable models. CRP added incremental prognostic information to that provided by brain natriuretic peptide alone. CRP did not change significantly over time in the placebo group; however, after 12 months, valsartan was associated with a decrease in CRP in patients not receiving ACE inhibitors but not in those receiving ACE inhibitors at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: CRP is increased in heart failure. Higher levels are associated with features of more severe heart failure and are independently associated with mortality and morbidity. The ability of treatments to reduce CRP levels and the prognostic importance of reducing CRP require further study.

Anemia and change in hemoglobin over time related to mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: results from Val-HeFT.

BACKGROUND: Anemia is known to be a prognostic marker for patients with heart failure. However, little is known about the prognostic value of changes in hemoglobin (Hgb) over time or about the causes of anemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective analysis of Valsartan Heart Failure Trial data indicated that the quartile of patients with the biggest average decrease in Hgb over 12 months (from 14.2 to 12.6 g/dL) had significantly (P< or =0.01) increased risk of subsequent hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47), morbid events (HR, 1.41), and death (HR, 1.6) compared with the quartile that exhibited little change in Hgb over 12 months (from 13.7 to 13.8 g/dL). Increasing Hgb was significantly associated with lower mortality in patients with (HR, 0.78) and without (HR, 0.79) anemia at baseline. Anemia at baseline and the changes in Hgb were independently associated with serum albumin, blood pressure, glomerular filtration rate, B-type natriuretic peptide, and C-reactive protein. Lack of anemia at baseline and increases in Hgb over 12 months were not associated with smaller left ventricular diameters or higher ejection fractions. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in Hgb over 12 months were inversely associated with subsequent risk of mortality and morbidity, independently of the effects of baseline anemia and other important predictors. Several factors were independently related to anemia at baseline and changes in Hgb, suggesting multiple causes of anemia in patients with heart failure. These findings raise important questions about the optimal level of Hgb in patients with moderate to severe heart failure and how to achieve them.

Effect of valsartan on quality of life when added to usual therapy for heart failure: results from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect on quality of life (QOL) of valsartan administered in addition to prescribed background heart failure therapy was assessed as a secondary endpoint in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT). METHODS AND RESULTS: QOL was assessed in 3010 patients receiving either valsartan (160 mg twice daily) or placebo in addition to prescribed background therapy (beta-blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors), using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) questionnaire. Treatment differences were compared at intervals to 36 months after randomization and at endpoint (last observation) using analysis of covariance and repeated measures mixed-effects, and at endpoint using a Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test. Scores lower than baseline were indicative of improved QOL. Valsartan had a significant beneficial effect on the least-square mean change in overall MLWHF score from baseline to study endpoint (+/- standard error) (average followup 23.0 months) compared with placebo (0.19 +/- 0.47 versus 1.94 +/- 0.48; P = .005 respectively). The placebo group was characterized by a deterioration in QOL as the trial progressed. More patients on valsartan reported a clinically meaningful improvement in MLWHF score (a decrease of > or =5 points) than on placebo (34.0% versus 30.2%). CONCLUSION: Valsartan compared to placebo added to prescribed therapy slows progressive worsening of QOL in patients with heart failure.

Comparison of treatment benefit and outcome in women versus men with chronic heart failure (from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial).

The comparison of treatment effect and co-morbidity between the genders in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial showed equal benefit of treatment in men and women. Co-morbidities, such as diabetes and coronary artery disease, increased nonfatal cardiac morbidity more in women than in men.

Severity of left ventricular remodeling defines outcomes and response to therapy in heart failure: Valsartan heart failure trial (Val-HeFT) echocardiographic data.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that the severity of left ventricular remodeling predicts the response to treatment and outcomes in chronic heart failure. BACKGROUND: Reversal of remodeling should produce the most favorable outcome in patients with the most severe remodeling. METHODS: In 5010 heart failure patients on background therapy and randomized to valsartan and placebo, serial recordings of left ventricular internal diastolic diameter (LVIDd) and ejection fraction (EF) were read at sites that had to meet qualifying standards before participating. Baseline LVIDd and EF were pooled across treatments and retrospectively grouped by quartiles Q1 to Q4, representing best to worst. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were obtained by the log-rank test. Q1 was compared with Q4 for mortality and combined mortality and morbidity (M + M) from Cox regression risk ratios (RRs). Valsartan versus placebo changes from baseline in LVIDd and EF were analyzed by quartiles from analysis of covariance. Valsartan and placebo were compared by RRs for M + M. RESULTS: Survival rates were greater in the better quartiles for LVIDd and EF (p < 0.00001). The RR for Q1 versus Q4 in events approached 0.5 for both LVIDd and EF (p < 0.0001). An LVIDd decrease and EF increase were quartile-dependent and greater with valsartan than placebo at virtually all time points. The RR for M + M outcomes favored valsartan in the worse quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: Stratification by baseline severity of remodeling showed that patients with worse LVIDd and EF are at highest risk for an event, yet appear to gain the most anti-remodeling effect and clinical benefit with valsartan treatment.

The comparative prognostic value of plasma neurohormones at baseline in patients with heart failure enrolled in Val-HeFT.

AIMS: Plasma levels of individual neurohormones (NH) have been proposed as reliable indicators for risk stratification of patients with heart failure (HF). Mainly because of small sample size, the predictive value of different NH has never been compared, while taking into account demographic, clinical and echocardiographic markers of risk in HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), norepinephrine (NE), renin activity (PRA), aldosterone (aldo) and endothelin were measured in 4300 patients before randomization in Val-HeFT. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between NH and two primary study outcomes, mortality and combined mortality and morbidity (M/M). Higher baseline values for all NH were related to mortality and M/M, with univariate hazard ratios ranging from 1.13 [95% CI 0.99-1.30] (aldo) to 2.47 [2.13-2.87] (BNP) for mortality, and from 1.24 [1.11-1.39] (aldo) to 2.56 [2.28-2.89] (BNP) for M/M. In multivariate analyses, BNP had the strongest association with outcome, followed by NE and PRA. Patients with more activation of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system tended to show greater benefit from valsartan; but the trend was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: All the NHs evaluated in 4300 patients with stable moderate to severe HF were found to be significant markers of outcome, despite therapy with ACEi, BB and randomization to an angiotensin receptor blocker or placebo. Several of these markers have been implicated as contributors to progression of HF, but BNP, which is thought to be protective, was the most powerful indicator for poor outcome.