The design of ALLHAT may have biased the study's outcome in favor of the diuretic cohort

Nature Clinical Practice Nephrology

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 60-61

  Hebert, Lee A ^a,b,c   Rovin, Brad H ^a,c   Hebert, Christopher J ^d  

^a Department of Internal Medicine ^*  (United States)

^b Division of Nephrology   (United States)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMLODIPINE; ANGIOTENSIN RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; ANTILIPEMIC AGENT; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT; CHLORTALIDONE; DIPEPTIDYL CARBOXYPEPTIDASE INHIBITOR; DIURETIC AGENT; GENERIC DRUG; LISINOPRIL; THIAZIDE DIURETIC AGENT;

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE THERAPY; BLOOD PRESSURE; BLOOD PRESSURE REGULATION; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CAUCASIAN; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE; DRUG ANTAGONISM; DRUG CHOICE; DRUG COST; DRUG DOSE INCREASE; FLUID RETENTION; FOLLOW UP; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; INFLAMMATION; METHODOLOGY; MONOTHERAPY; NEGRO; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACE DIFFERENCE; RISK REDUCTION; SHORT SURVEY; STROKE; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; ANTILIPEMIC AGENTS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COHORT STUDIES; DIURETICS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPERLIPIDEMIAS; HYPERTENSION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33846506173     PISSN: 17458323     EISSN: 17458331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ncpneph0391     Document Type: Short Survey

References (13)

1. ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group (2002) 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 288: 2981-2997
2. Davis BR et al. (2004) ALLHAT: setting the record straight. Ann Intern Med 141: 39-46
3. Houston MC (2004) ALLHAT debate: diuretics are not preferred, first-line initial therapy for hypertension. Arch Intern Med 164: 570-571
4. Morganti A (2005) Should a diuretic always be the first choice in patients with essential hypertension? The case for no. J Am Soc Nephrol 16 (Suppl 1): S70-S73
5. Messerli FH et al. (2004) Antihypertensive therapy and new onset diabetes. J Hypertens 22: 1845-1847
6. Wilmer WA et al. (2003) Management of glomerular proteinuria: a commentary. J Am Soc Nephrol 14: 3217-3232
7. Bloch MJ and Basile J (2006) Valsartan but not valsartan+ hydrochlorothiazide, moderately decreases C-reactive protein in patients with stage 2-hypertension: the Val-MARC trial. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 8: 602-604
8. Hawkins RG and Houston MC (2005) Is populationwide diuretic use directly associated with the incidence of end-stage renal disease in the United States? A hypothesis. Am J Hypertens 18: 744-749
9. Smith NL et al. (2006) New-onset diabetes and risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: the Cardiovascular Health Study. Diabetes Care 29: 2012-2017
10. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group on Future Directions in Hypertension Treatment Trials (2005) Major clinical trials of hypertension: what should be done next? Hypertension 46: 1-6
11. Yusuf S et al. (2000) Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 342:145-153
12. PROGRESS Collaborative Group (2001) Randomised trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-lowering regimen among 6,105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet 358: 1033-1041
13. Fox KM et al. (2003) Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study). Lancet 362: 782-788