PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 1, 1998Diabetes Care862 citations

Outcome Results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in Patients With Hypertension and NIDDM

View Full Paper
PTPatrizio TattiUniversity of SienaMPMarco PahorPreventive CardiologyRBRobert P. ByingtonPreventive Cardiology

Key Result

Fosinopril significantly reduced the risk of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalized angina compared to amlodipine in patients with hypertension and NIDDM (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.26-0.95).

Study Design

Type

RCT (n=380)

Blinding

open-label

Randomization

randomly assigned

Structured PICO

Does fosinopril improve serum lipids and diabetes control compared to amlodipine in patients with NIDDM and hypertension?

P
Population
380 patients with NIDDM and hypertension (systolic blood pressure > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg). Excluded: history of coronary heart disease or stroke, serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl, albuminuria > 40 micrograms/min, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, aspirin, or antihypertensive agents other than beta-blockers or diuretics.
I
Intervention
Fosinopril 20 mg/day (open-label)
C
Comparator
Amlodipine 10 mg/day (open-label)
O
Outcome
Effects on serum lipids and diabetes control (total serum cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, HbA1c, fasting serum glucose, or plasma insulin)surrogate

In patients with NIDDM and hypertension, fosinopril and amlodipine had similar effects on biochemical measures, but fosinopril significantly reduced the risk of major vascular events compared to amlodipine.

Main Result

Effect estimate: HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.26-0.95)

Absolute Event Rate: 7.4% vs 14.1%

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: ACE inhibitors and calcium antagonists may favorably affect serum lipids and glucose metabolism. The primary aim of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) was to compare the effects of fosinopril and amlodipine on serum lipids and diabetes control in NIDDM patients with hypertension. Prospectively defined cardiovascular events were assessed as secondary outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of NIDDM and hypertension (systolic blood pressure of > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure of > 90 mmHg). Exclusion criteria included a history of coronary heart disease or stroke, serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl, albuminuria > 40 micrograms/min, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, aspirin, or antihypertensive agents other than beta-blockers or diuretics. A total of 380 hypertensive diabetics were randomly assigned to open-label fosinopril (20 mg/day) or amlodipine (10 mg/day) and followed for up to 3.5 years. If blood pressure was not controlled, the other study drug was added. RESULTS: Both treatments were effective in lowering blood pressure. At the end of follow-up, between the two groups there was no significant difference in total serum cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, HbA1c, fasting serum glucose, or plasma insulin. The patients receiving fosinopril had a significantly lower risk of the combined outcome of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalized angina than those receiving amlodipine (14/189 vs. 27/191; hazards ratio = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.26-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Fosinopril and amlodipine had similar effects on biochemical measures, but the patients randomized to fosinopril had a significantly lower risk of major vascular events, compared with the patients randomized to amlodipine.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Tatti et al. (1998) conducted an RCT in Hypertension and NIDDM (n=380). fosinopril vs. amlodipine was evaluated on combined outcome of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalized angina (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.95). Fosinopril significantly reduced the risk of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalized angina compared to amlodipine in patients with hypertension and NIDDM (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.26-0.95).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a07f1fc09b3c820153789f5https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.21.4.597
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper