Ina U Park1, Anne L Taylor. 1. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn, USA. parki@obgyn.ucsf.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: We wanted to systematically review (1) the participation of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials of antihypertensive drug therapy and (2) racial differences in the efficacy of these therapies for the prevention of cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, African Index Medicus, and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to December 2005 for randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of antihypertensive drug therapy in preventing myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, or cardiovascular death. MEDLINE was also searched from 2005 through 2006. The 2 authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and quality. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Eight trials reported results by racial subgroup. Trials with black and Hispanic participants (ALLHAT, INVEST, VALUE) found similar primary outcomes, but ALLHAT found a greater magnitude of benefit for blacks on diuretic therapy compared with nonblacks. One trial (PROGRESS) compared Asians with non-Asians, reporting that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (vs placebo) were equally effective for preventing stroke in both groups. In the LIFE trial, post hoc analyses showed different outcomes for blacks and nonblacks, raising questions about the usefulness of angiotensin-receptor blockers as first-line antihypertensive agents in blacks. In 3 studies conducted exclusively in Asians (JMIC-B, FEVER, NICS-EH), calcium channel blockers were effective in preventing cardiovascular outcomes. No trials described cardiovascular outcomes in Native Americans. CONCLUSIONS: Five trials made interethnic group comparisons; 4 had similar primary outcomes for ethnic minorities and whites. Increased minority participation in future studies is needed to determine optimal prevention therapies, especially in outcome-driven trials comparing multidrug antihypertensive treatment regimens.
PURPOSE: We wanted to systematically review (1) the participation of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials of antihypertensive drug therapy and (2) racial differences in the efficacy of these therapies for the prevention of cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, African Index Medicus, and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to December 2005 for randomized controlled trials testing the efficacy of antihypertensive drug therapy in preventing myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, or cardiovascular death. MEDLINE was also searched from 2005 through 2006. The 2 authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and quality. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Eight trials reported results by racial subgroup. Trials with black and Hispanic participants (ALLHAT, INVEST, VALUE) found similar primary outcomes, but ALLHAT found a greater magnitude of benefit for blacks on diuretic therapy compared with nonblacks. One trial (PROGRESS) compared Asians with non-Asians, reporting that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (vs placebo) were equally effective for preventing stroke in both groups. In the LIFE trial, post hoc analyses showed different outcomes for blacks and nonblacks, raising questions about the usefulness of angiotensin-receptor blockers as first-line antihypertensive agents in blacks. In 3 studies conducted exclusively in Asians (JMIC-B, FEVER, NICS-EH), calcium channel blockers were effective in preventing cardiovascular outcomes. No trials described cardiovascular outcomes in Native Americans. CONCLUSIONS: Five trials made interethnic group comparisons; 4 had similar primary outcomes for ethnic minorities and whites. Increased minority participation in future studies is needed to determine optimal prevention therapies, especially in outcome-driven trials comparing multidrug antihypertensive treatment regimens.
Authors: Giselle Corbie-Smith; Diane Marie M St George; Sandra Moody-Ayers; David F Ransohoff Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Henry R Black; William J Elliott; Gregory Grandits; Patricia Grambsch; Tracy Lucente; William B White; James D Neaton; Richard H Grimm; Lennart Hansson; Yves Lacourciere; James Muller; Peter Sleight; Michael A Weber; Gordon Williams; Janet Wittes; Alberto Zanchetti; Robert J Anders Journal: JAMA Date: 2003 Apr 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lindon M H Wing; Christopher M Reid; Philip Ryan; Lawrence J Beilin; Mark A Brown; Garry L R Jennings; Colin I Johnston; John J McNeil; Graham J Macdonald; John E Marley; Trefor O Morgan; Malcolm J West Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-02-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lars H Lindholm; Hans Ibsen; Björn Dahlöf; Richard B Devereux; Gareth Beevers; Ulf de Faire; Frej Fyhrquist; Stevo Julius; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Krister Kristiansson; Ole Lederballe-Pedersen; Markku S Nieminen; Per Omvik; Suzanne Oparil; Hans Wedel; Peter Aurup; Jonathan Edelman; Steven Snapinn Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-03-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bruce M Psaty; Thomas Lumley; Curt D Furberg; Gina Schellenbaum; Marco Pahor; Michael H Alderman; Noel S Weiss Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joel Neutel; Dean J Kereiakes; Kathy A Stoakes; Jen-Fue Maa; Ali Shojaee; William F Waverczak Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Suzanne Oparil; Maria Czarina Acelajado; George L Bakris; Dan R Berlowitz; Renata Cífková; Anna F Dominiczak; Guido Grassi; Jens Jordan; Neil R Poulter; Anthony Rodgers; Paul K Whelton Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Carolyn H Still; Timothy E Craven; Barry I Freedman; Peter N Van Buren; Kaycee M Sink; Anthony A Killeen; Jeffrey T Bates; Alberta Bee; Gabriel Contreras; Suzanne Oparil; Carolyn M Pedley; Barry M Wall; Suzanne White; Delia M Woods; Carlos J Rodriguez; Jackson T Wright Journal: J Am Soc Hypertens Date: 2015-08-07