Renal Outcomes in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients Treated With an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or a Calcium Channel Blocker vs a Diuretic

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to determine whether, in high-risk hypertensive patients with a reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR), treatment with a calcium channel blocker or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lowers the incidence of renal disease outcomes compared with treatment with a diuretic. METHODS: We conducted post hoc analyses of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Hypertensive participants 55 years or older with at least 1 other coronary heart disease risk factor were randomized to receive chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril for a mean of 4.9 years. Renal outcomes were incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and/or a decrement in GFR of 50% or more from baseline. Baseline GFR, estimated by the simplified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation, was stratified into normal or increased (> or =90 mL /min per 1.73 m(2), n = 8126), mild reduction (60-89 mL /min per 1.73 m(2), n = 18 109), or moderate-severe reduction (<60 mL /min per 1.73 m(2), n = 5662) in GFR. Each stratum was analyzed for effects of the treatments on outcomes. RESULTS: In 448 participants, ESRD developed. Compared with patients taking chlorthalidone, no significant differences occurred in the incidence of ESRD in patients taking amlodipine in the mild (relative risk RR, 1.47; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.97-2.23) or moderate-severe (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68-1.24) reduction in GFR groups. Compared with patients taking chlorthalidone, no significant differences occurred in the incidence of ESRD in patients taking lisinopril in the mild (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.87-2.06) or moderate-severe (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.73-1.31) reduction in GFR groups. In patients with mild and moderate-severe reduction in GFR, the incidence of ESRD or 50% or greater decrement in GFR was not significantly different in patients treated with chlorthalidone compared with those treated with amlodipine (odds ratios, 0.96 P = .74 and 0.85 P = .23, respectively) and lisinopril (odds ratios, 1.13 P = .31 and 1.00 P = .98, respectively). No difference in treatment effects occurred for either end point for patients taking amlodipine or lisinopril compared with those taking chlorthalidone across the 3 GFR subgroups, either for the total group or for participants with diabetes at baseline. At 4 years of follow-up, estimated GFR was 3 to 6 mL /min per 1.73 m(2) higher in patients assigned to receive amlodipine compared with chlorthalidone, depending on baseline GFR stratum. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with reduced GFR, neither amlodipine nor lisinopril was superior to chlorthalidone in reducing the rate of development of ESRD or a 50% or greater decrement in GFR. Participants assigned to receive amlodipine had a higher GFR than those assigned to receive chlorthalidone, but rates of development of ESRD were not different between the groups.