Literature DB >> 15536108

Effect of antihypertensive agents on cardiovascular events in patients with coronary disease and normal blood pressure: the CAMELOT study: a randomized controlled trial.

Steven E Nissen1, E Murat Tuzcu, Peter Libby, Paul D Thompson, Magdi Ghali, Dahlia Garza, Lance Berman, Harry Shi, Ethel Buebendorf, Eric J Topol.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: The effect of antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and normal blood pressure remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of amlodipine or enalapril vs placebo on cardiovascular events in patients with CAD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Double-blind, randomized, multicenter, 24-month trial (enrollment April 1999-April 2002) comparing amlodipine or enalapril with placebo in 1991 patients with angiographically documented CAD (>20% stenosis by coronary angiography) and diastolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg. A substudy of 274 patients measured atherosclerosis progression by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS).
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive amlodipine, 10 mg; enalapril, 20 mg; or placebo. IVUS was performed at baseline and study completion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy parameter was incidence of cardiovascular events for amlodipine vs placebo. Other outcomes included comparisons of amlodipine vs enalapril and enalapril vs placebo. Events included cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, hospitalization for angina pectoris, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, fatal or nonfatal stroke or transient ischemic attack, and new diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease. The IVUS end point was change in percent atheroma volume.
RESULTS: Baseline blood pressure averaged 129/78 mm Hg for all patients; it increased by 0.7/0.6 mm Hg in the placebo group and decreased by 4.8/2.5 mm Hg and 4.9/2.4 mm Hg in the amlodipine and enalapril groups, respectively (P<.001 for both vs placebo). Cardiovascular events occurred in 151 (23.1%) placebo-treated patients, in 110 (16.6%) amlodipine-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.88 [P = .003]), and in 136 (20.2%) enalapril-treated patients (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67-1.07 [P = .16]. Primary end point comparison for enalapril vs amlodipine was not significant (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.63-1.04 [P = .10]). The IVUS substudy showed a trend toward less progression of atherosclerosis in the amlodipine group vs placebo (P = .12), with significantly less progression in the subgroup with systolic blood pressures greater than the mean (P = .02). Compared with baseline, IVUS showed progression in the placebo group (P<.001), a trend toward progression in the enalapril group (P = .08), and no progression in the amlodipine group (P = .31). For the amlodipine group, correlation between blood pressure reduction and progression was r = 0.19, P = .07.
CONCLUSIONS: Administration of amlodipine to patients with CAD and normal blood pressure resulted in reduced adverse cardiovascular events. Directionally similar, but smaller and nonsignificant, treatment effects were observed with enalapril. For amlodipine, IVUS showed evidence of slowing of atherosclerosis progression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15536108     DOI: 10.1001/jama.292.18.2217

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  218 in total

Review 1.  Applications of grayscale and radiofrequency intravascular ultrasound to image atherosclerotic plaque.

Authors:  Somjot S Brar; Gary S Mintz; Akiko Maehara; Gregg W Stone
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  Visit-to-Visit Blood Pressure Variability, Coronary Atheroma Progression, and Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  Donald Clark; Stephen J Nicholls; Julie St John; Mohamed B Elshazly; Haitham M Ahmed; Haitham Khraishah; Steven E Nissen; Rishi Puri
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 14.676

Review 3.  [Progression and regression of atherosclerotic plaques. New results based on intracoronary ultrasound].

Authors:  Raimund Erbel
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.443

4.  Effects of anti-hypertensive treatment on major cardiovascular events in populations within prehypertensive levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhongqiu Hong; Tao Wu; Shuxian Zhou; Boshui Huang; Jingfeng Wang; Dongmei Jin; Dengfeng Geng
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 3.012

5.  Clinical trials report. Good news and bad news: now the bad news.

Authors:  Norman M Kaplan
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 5.369

6.  Prevention of hyperglycemic signal pathways in metabolic syndrome carotid artery of rats.

Authors:  Hiromi Kawai; Fengfeng Tian; Tomoko Kurata; Kentaro Deguchi; Toru Yamashita; Yoshio Omote; Syoichiro Kono; Koji Abe
Journal:  Transl Stroke Res       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 6.829

7.  Progression of coronary atherosclerosis in African-American patients.

Authors:  Yu Kataoka; Amy Hsu; Kathy Wolski; Kiyoko Uno; Rishi Puri; E Murat Tuzcu; Steven E Nissen; Stephen J Nicholls
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2013-09

8.  Comparison of the pharmacodynamic effects of ranolazine versus amlodipine on platelet reactivity in stable patients with coronary artery disease treated with dual antiplatelet therapy : The ROMAN (RanOlazine vs. aMlodipine on platelet reactivity in stable patients with CAD treated with dual ANtiplatelet therapy) study.

Authors:  Francesco Pelliccia; Cesare Greco; Carlo Gaudio; Giuseppe Rosano; Cristiana Vitale; Giuseppe Marazzi; Fabiana Rollini; Dominick J Angiolillo
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 9.  Is atherosclerosis regression a realistic goal of statin therapy and what does that mean?

Authors:  Mukesh Singh; Updesh Singh Bedi
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.113

Review 10.  Scientific rationale for combination of a calcium channel antagonist and an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor: a new approach to risk factor management.

Authors:  R Preston Mason
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 9.546

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.