| 1. |
- Lindgren, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin for the prevention of coronary and stroke events: an economic analysis of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial--lipid-lowering arm (ASCOT-LLA)
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1741-8267. ; 12:1, s. 29-36
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of the lipid-lowering arm of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT-LLA) where patients from seven countries with hypertension and no history of coronary heart disease (CHD) were randomized to receive 10 mg atorvastatin or placebo. DESIGN: Economic analysis of a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Data on resource use were aggregated for all patients during the entire trial period (median 3.3 years) and multiplied with unit costs for Sweden and the UK. The total number of cardiovascular events and procedures avoided was used as the measure of effectiveness. RESULTS: Patients treated with atorvastatin had an additional net costs of 449 euro (4114 SEK) in Sweden and 414 euro (260 pounds sterling) in the UK, but fewer events per patient (0.097 compared to 0.132). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 12673 euro (116119 SEK) and 11693 euro (7349 pounds sterling) per event avoided. CONCLUSION: Based on comparisons with the WOSCOPS and 4S studies, atorvastatin at 10 mg to treat patients as in the ASCOT study, appears to be a cost-effective strategy.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lindgren, P., et al.
(författare)
-
The lifetime cost effectiveness of amlodipine-based therapy plus atorvastatin compared with atenolol plus atorvastatin, amlodipine-based therapy alone and atenolol-based therapy alone: results from ASCOT1
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Pharmacoeconomics. - 1170-7690. ; 27:3, s. 221-30
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: ASCOT (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial) showed in hypertensive patients that blood pressure-lowering treatment with an amlodipine-based regimen reduces events compared with an atenolol-based regimen and that atorvastatin was more effective than placebo. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of four alternative treatment strategies in patients with hypertension and three or more cardiovascular risk factors in the UK (from the UK NHS perspective) or Sweden (from the societal perspective): amlodipine-based plus atorvastatin, atenolol-based plus atorvastatin, amlodipine-based alone and atenolol-based alone. METHODS: Based on the trial data, a Markov model was constructed where the risk of myocardial infarction, revascularization procedures and stroke and the long-term costs, quality of life and mortality associated with these events were estimated. Transition probabilities and costs (euro, 2007 values) were based on the patient-level trial data. Outcomes were reported as life-years gained and QALYs. In the latter case, utility reduction from events was based on a substudy in ASCOT patients. Treatment was applied for the duration of the lipid-lowering arm of the trial (3 years) and patients were then followed to the end of their life. RESULTS: Amlodipine-based therapy plus atorvastatin was the most expensive but also most effective treatment. Compared with amlodipine-based therapy alone, the cost to gain one QALY was euro 11,965 in the UK and euro 8,591 in Sweden. The incremental cost effectiveness of amlodipine-based therapy compared with atenolol-based therapy was euro 9,548 and euro 3,965 per QALY gained in the UK and Sweden, respectively. Atenolol-based therapy plus atorvastatin was eliminated through extended dominance. Applying the threshold values used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, a combination of amlodipine-based therapy and atorvastatin appears to be cost effective in patients with hypertension and three or more additional risk factors.
|
|
| 3. |
- Rothwell, P. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of beta blockers and calcium-channel blockers on within-individual variability in blood pressure and risk of stroke
- 2010
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Neurology. - 1474-4422. ; 9:5, s. 469-480
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Analyses of some randomised trials show that calcium-channel blockers reduce the risk of stroke more than expected on the basis of mean blood pressure alone and that beta blockers are less effective than expected. We aimed to investigate whether the effects of these drugs on variability in blood pressure might explain these disparities in effect on stroke risk. METHODS: The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) compared amlodipine-based regimens with atenolol-based regimens in 19 257 patients with hypertension and other vascular risk factors and the Medical Research Council (MRC) trial compared atenolol-based and diuretic-based regimens versus placebo in 4396 hypertensive patients aged 65-74 years. We expressed visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure during follow-up in the two trials as standard deviation (SD) and as transformations uncorrelated with mean blood pressure. For ASCOT-BPLA, we also studied within-visit variability and variability on 24 h ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring (ABPM). RESULTS: In ASCOT-BPLA, group systolic blood pressure (SBP) SD was lower in the amlodipine group than in the atenolol group at all follow-up visits (p<0.0001), mainly because of lower within-individual visit-to-visit variability. Within-visit and ABPM variability in SBP were also lower in the amlodipine group than in the atenolol group (all p<0.0001). Analysis of changes from baseline showed that variability decreased over time in the amlodipine group and increased in the atenolol group. The lower risk of stroke in the amlodipine group (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.90) was partly attenuated by adjusting for mean SBP during follow-up (0.84, 0.72-0.98), but was abolished by also adjusting for within-individual SD of clinic SBP (0.99, 0.85-1.16). Findings were similar for coronary events. In the ABPM substudy, reduced variability in daytime SBP in the amlodipine group (p<0.0001) partly accounted for the reduced risk of vascular events, but reduced visit-to-visit variability in clinic SBP had a greater effect. In the MRC trial, group SD SBP and all measures of within-individual visit-to-visit variability in SBP were increased in the atenolol group compared with both the placebo group and the diuretic group during initial follow-up (all p<0.0001). Subsequent temporal trends in variability in blood pressure during follow-up in the atenolol group correlated with trends in stroke risk. INTERPRETATION: The opposite effects of calcium-channel blockers and beta blockers on variability of blood pressure account for the disparity in observed effects on risk of stroke and expected effects based on mean blood pressure. To prevent stroke most effectively, blood-pressure-lowering drugs should reduce mean blood pressure without increasing variability; ideally they should reduce both. FUNDING: None.
|
|
| 4. |
- Rothwell, P. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability, maximum systolic blood pressure, and episodic hypertension
- 2010
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736. ; 375:9718, s. 895-905
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The mechanisms by which hypertension causes vascular events are unclear. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment focus only on underlying mean blood pressure. We aimed to reliably establish the prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure, maximum blood pressure reached, untreated episodic hypertension, and residual variability in treated patients. METHODS: We determined the risk of stroke in relation to visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure (expressed as standard deviation [SD] and parameters independent of mean blood pressure) and maximum blood pressure in patients with previous transient ischaemic attack (TIA; UK-TIA trial and three validation cohorts) and in patients with treated hypertension (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial Blood Pressure Lowering Arm [ASCOT-BPLA]). In ASCOT-BPLA, 24-h ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring (ABPM) was also studied. FINDINGS: In each TIA cohort, visit-to-visit variability in systolic blood pressure (SBP) was a strong predictor of subsequent stroke (eg, top-decile hazard ratio [HR] for SD SBP over seven visits in UK-TIA trial: 6.22, 95% CI 4.16-9.29, p<0.0001), independent of mean SBP, but dependent on precision of measurement (top-decile HR over ten visits: 12.08, 7.40-19.72, p<0.0001). Maximum SBP reached was also a strong predictor of stroke (HR for top-decile over seven visits: 15.01, 6.56-34.38, p<0.0001, after adjustment for mean SBP). In ASCOT-BPLA, residual visit-to-visit variability in SBP on treatment was also a strong predictor of stroke and coronary events (eg, top-decile HR for stroke: 3.25, 2.32-4.54, p<0.0001), independent of mean SBP in clinic or on ABPM. Variability on ABPM was a weaker predictor, but all measures of variability were most predictive in younger patients and at lower (
|
|
| 5. |
- Chapman, N., et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of spironolactone on blood pressure in subjects with resistant hypertension
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Hypertension. - 1524-4563. ; 49:4, s. 839-45
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Spironolactone is recommended as fourth-line therapy for essential hypertension despite few supporting data for this indication. We evaluated the effect among 1411 participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm who received spironolactone mainly as a fourth-line antihypertensive agent for uncontrolled blood pressure and who had valid BP measurements before and during spironolactone treatment. Among those who received spironolactone, the mean age was 63 years (SD: +/-8 years), 77% were men, and 40% had diabetes. Spironolactone was initiated a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range: 2.0 to 4.4 years) after randomization and added to a mean of 2.9 (SD: +/-0.9) other antihypertensive drugs. The median duration of spironolactone treatment was 1.3 years (interquartile range: 0.6 to 2.6 years). The median dose of spironolactone was 25 mg (interquartile range: 25 to 50 mg) at both the start and end of the observation period. During spironolactone therapy, mean blood pressure fell from 156.9/85.3 mm Hg (SD: +/-18.0/11.5 mm Hg) by 21.9/9.5 mm Hg (95% CI: 20.8 to 23.0/9.0 to 10.1 mm Hg; P<0.001); the BP reduction was largely unaffected by age, sex, smoking, and diabetic status. Spironolactone was generally well tolerated; 6% of participants discontinued the drug because of adverse effects. The most frequent adverse events were gynecomastia or breast discomfort and biochemical abnormalities (principally hyperkaliemia), which were recorded as adverse events in 6% and 2% of participants, respectively. In conclusion, spironolactone effectively lowers blood pressure in patients with hypertension uncontrolled by a mean of approximately 3 other drugs. Although nonrandomized and not placebo controlled, these data support the use of spironolactone in uncontrolled hypertension.
|
|
| 6. |
- Dahlöf, Björn, 1953, et al.
(författare)
-
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
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Lancet. - 1474-547X. ; 366:9489, s. 895-906
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The apparent shortfall in prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) noted in early hypertension trials has been attributed to disadvantages of the diuretics and beta blockers used. For a given reduction in blood pressure, some suggested that newer agents would confer advantages over diuretics and beta blockers. Our aim, therefore, was to compare the effect on non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD of combinations of atenolol with a thiazide versus amlodipine with perindopril. METHODS: We did a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial in 19 257 patients with hypertension who were aged 40-79 years and had at least three other cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were assigned either amlodipine 5-10 mg adding perindopril 4-8 mg as required (amlodipine-based regimen; n=9639) or atenolol 50-100 mg adding bendroflumethiazide 1.25-2.5 mg and potassium as required (atenolol-based regimen; n=9618). Our primary endpoint was non-fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infarction) and fatal CHD. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The study was stopped prematurely after 5.5 years' median follow-up and accumulated in total 106 153 patient-years of observation. Though not significant, compared with the atenolol-based regimen, fewer individuals on the amlodipine-based regimen had a primary endpoint (429 vs 474; unadjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.02, p=0.1052), fatal and non-fatal stroke (327 vs 422; 0.77, 0.66-0.89, p=0.0003), total cardiovascular events and procedures (1362 vs 1602; 0.84, 0.78-0.90, p<0.0001), and all-cause mortality (738 vs 820; 0.89, 0.81-0.99, p=0.025). The incidence of developing diabetes was less on the amlodipine-based regimen (567 vs 799; 0.70, 0.63-0.78, p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: The amlodipine-based regimen prevented more major cardiovascular events and induced less diabetes than the atenolol-based regimen. On the basis of previous trial evidence, these effects might not be entirely explained by better control of blood pressure, and this issue is addressed in the accompanying article. Nevertheless, the results have implications with respect to optimum combinations of antihypertensive agents.
|
|
| 7. |
- Gupta, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Adverse events associated with unblinded, but not with blinded, statin therapy in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial and its non-randomised non-blind extension phase
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Lancet. - : Elsevier BV. - 0140-6736. ; 389:10088, s. 2473-2481
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background In blinded randomised controlled trials, statin therapy has been associated with few adverse events (AEs). By contrast, in observational studies, larger increases in many different AEs have been reported than in blinded trials. Methods In the Lipid-Lowering Arm of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial, patients aged 40-79 years with hypertension, at least three other cardiovascular risk factors, and fasting total cholesterol concentrations of 6.5 mmol/L or lower, and who were not taking a statin or fibrate, had no history of myocardial infarction, and were not being treated for angina were randomly assigned to atorvastatin 10 mg daily or matching placebo in a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase. In a subsequent non-randomised non-blind extension phase (initiated because of early termination of the trial because efficacy of atorvastatin was shown), all patients were offered atorvastatin 10 mg daily open label. We classified AEs using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. We blindly adjudicated all reports of four prespecified AEs of interest-muscle-related, erectile dysfunction, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment-and analysed all remaining AEs grouped by system organ class. Rates of AEs are given as percentages per annum. Results The blinded randomised phase was done between February, 1998, and December, 2002; we included 101 80 patients in this analysis (5101 [50%] in the atorvastatin group and 5079 [50%] in the placebo group), with a median follow-up of 3.3 years (IQR 2.7-3.7). The non-blinded non-randomised phase was done between December, 2002, and June, 2005; we included 9899 patients in this analysis (6409 [65%] atorvastatin users and 3490 [35%] nonusers), with a median follow-up of 2.3 years (2.2-2.4). During the blinded phase, muscle-related AEs (298 [2.03% per annum] vs 283 [2.00% per annum]; hazard ratio 1.03 [95% CI 0.88-1.21]; p= 0.72) and erectile dysfunction (272 [1.86% per annum] vs 302 [2.14% per annum]; 0.88 [0.75-1.04]; p= 0.13) were reported at a similar rate by participants randomly assigned to atorvastatin or placebo. The rate of reports of sleep disturbance was significantly lower among participants assigned atorvastatin than assigned placebo (149 [1.00% per annum] vs 210 [1.46% per annum]; 0.69 [0.56-0.85]; p= 0.0005). Too few cases of cognitive impairment were reported for a statistically reliable analysis (31 [0.20% per annum] vs 32 [0.22% per annum]; 0.94 [057-1.54]; p= 0.81). We observed no significant differences in the rates of all other reported AEs, with the exception of an excess of renal and urinary AEs among patients assigned atorvastatin (481 [1.87%] per annum vs 392 [1.51%] per annum; 1.23 [1.08-1.41]; p= 0.002). By contrast, during the non-blinded non-randomised phase, muscle-related AEs were reported at a significantly higher rate by participants taking statins than by those who were not (161 [1.26% per annum] vs 124 [1.00% per annum]; 1.41 [1.10-1.79]; p= 0.006). We noted no significant differences between statin users and non-users in the rates of other AEs, with the exception of musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (992 [8.69% per annum] vs 831 [7.45% per annum]; 1.17 [1.06-1.29]; p= 0.001) and blood and lymphatic system disorders (114 [0.88% per annum] vs 80 [0.64% per annum]; 1.40 [1.04-1.88]; p= 0.03), which were reported more commonly by statin users than by non-users. Interpretation These analyses illustrate the so-called nocebo effect, with an excess rate of muscle-related AE reports only when patients and their doctors were aware that statin therapy was being used and not when its use was blinded. These results will help assure both physicians and patients that most AEs associated with statins are not causally related to use of the drug and should help counter the adverse effect on public health of exaggerated claims about statin-related side-effects. C1, 2013, Heart of the matter part 2-cholesterol drug war
|
|
| 8. |
- Gupta, A. K., et al.
(författare)
-
Metabolic syndrome, independent of its components, is a risk factor for stroke and death but not for coronary heart disease among hypertensive patients in the ASCOT-BPLA
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Diabetes Care. - 0149-5992. ; 33:7, s. 1647-1651
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether in hypertensive patients the risk of cardiovascular disease is greater in association with the metabolic syndrome (MetS) or the sum of its individual components. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cox regression analysis models were developed to assess the influence of age, sex, ethnicity, and the individual components of MetS on risk associated with the MetS (using several definitions) of coronary outcomes, stroke, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: MetS was significantly associated with coronary outcomes, stroke, and all-cause mortality after adjusting for age, sex, and ethnicity. However, when the model was further adjusted for the individual components, MetS was associated with significantly increased risk of stroke (hazard ratio 1.34 [95% CI 1.07-1.68]) and all-cause mortality (1.35 [1.16-1.58]) but not coronary outcomes (fatal coronary heart disease plus nonfatal myocardial infarction 1.16 [0.95-1.43] and total coronary events 1.06 [0.91-1.24]). CONCLUSIONS: MetS, independent of its individual components, is associated with increased risk of stroke and all-cause mortality but not coronary outcomes.
|
|
| 9. |
- Poulter, N. R., et al.
(författare)
-
Baseline heart rate, antihypertensive treatment, and prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in ASCOT (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial)
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - 1558-3597. ; 54:13, s. 1154-61
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of baseline heart rate on the efficacy of atenolol-based compared with amlodipine-based therapy in patients with hypertension uncomplicated by coronary heart disease in the ASCOT-BPLA (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm). BACKGROUND: Heart rate is an established risk factor for cardiovascular events. Consequently, it is a widely held belief that beta-blockers should be prescribed for management of hypertension in patients with higher heart rates. METHODS: Patients with atrial fibrillation or taking rate-limiting antihypertensive drugs at baseline were excluded. Primary analyses used Cox models to investigate the potential attenuation of the treatment effect with higher baseline heart rate on total cardiovascular events and procedures (TCVP) via introduction of an interaction term. Secondary analyses assessed coronary and total stroke outcomes. RESULTS: Primary unadjusted analyses included 12,759 patients and 1,966 TCVP. At the final visit, mean heart rate reduction from baseline was 12.0 (SD 13.7) and 1.3 (SD 12.1) beats/min in atenolol- and amlodipine-based groups, respectively. There was a reduction in TCVP in those allocated amlodipine-based therapy compared with atenolol-based therapy (unadjusted hazard ratio: 0.81, p < 0.001). This benefit was unattenuated at higher heart rates (interaction p value = 0.81). Similar results were obtained for coronary and total stroke outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that the superiority of amlodipine-based over atenolol-based therapy for patients with hypertension uncomplicated by coronary heart disease was attenuated with higher baseline heart rate. These data suggest that, in similar hypertensive populations without previous or current coronary artery disease, higher baseline heart rate is not an indication for preferential use of beta-blocker-based therapy.
|
|
| 10. |
- Poulter, N. R., et al.
(författare)
-
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)
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Lancet. - 1474-547X. ; 366:9489, s. 907-13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Results of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) show significantly lower rates of coronary and stroke events in individuals allocated an amlodipine-based combination drug regimen than in those allocated an atenolol-based combination drug regimen (HR 0.86 and 0.77, respectively). Our aim was to assess to what extent these differences were due to significant differences in blood pressures and in other variables noted after randomisation. METHODS: We used data from ASCOT-BPLA (n=19 257) and compared differences in accumulated mean blood pressure levels at sequential times in the trial with sequential differences in coronary and stroke events. Serial mean matching for differences in systolic blood pressure was used to adjust HRs for differences in these events. We used an updated Cox-regression model to assess the effects of differences in accumulated mean levels of various measures of blood pressure, serum HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides and potassium, fasting blood glucose, heart rate, and bodyweight on differences in event rates. FINDINGS: We noted no temporal link between size of differences in blood pressure and different event rates. Serial mean matching for differences in systolic blood-pressure attenuated HRs for coronary and stroke events to a similar extent as did adjustments for systolic blood-pressure differences in Cox-regression analyses. HRs for coronary events and stroke adjusted for blood pressure rose from 0.86 (0.77-0.96) to 0.88 (0.79-0.98) and from 0.77 (0.66-0.89) to 0.83 (0.72-0.96), respectively. Multivariate adjustment gave HRs of 0.94 (0.81-1.08) for coronary events (HDL cholesterol being the largest contributor) and 0.87 (0.73-1.05) for stroke events. INTERPRETATION: Multivariate adjustment accounted for about half of the differences in coronary events and for about 40% of the differences in stroke events between the treatment regimens tested in ASCOT-BPLA, but residual differences were no longer significant. These residual differences could indicate inadequate statistical adjustment, but it remains possible that differential effects of the two treatment regimens on other variables also contributed to the different rates noted, particularly for stroke.
|
|
