Trial reportJournal of the American Society of Hypertension : JASH2014
Stroke outcomes among participants randomized to chlorthalidone, amlodipine or lisinopril in ALLHAT.
Trial report in Journal of the American Society of Hypertension : JASH, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review: antihypertensive drug therapy in patients of African and South Asian ethnicity.Internal and emergency medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Mortality and Morbidity Among Individuals With Hypertension Receiving a Diuretic, ACE Inhibitor, or Calcium Channel Blocker: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Differential Effects of Antihypertensive Drug Classes on Home and Office Blood Pressure Variability.International journal of hypertension · 2026Article
- First-line diuretics versus other classes of antihypertensive drugs for hypertension.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Choice of antihypertensive agent in isolated systolic hypertension and isolated diastolic hypertension: A secondary analysis of the ALLHAT trial.American heart journal · 2022Article
- Sex differences in hypertension. Do we need a sex-specific guideline?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Effects of Posttrial Antihypertensive Drugs on Morbidity and Mortality: Findings from 15-Year Passive Follow-Up after ALLHAT Ended.International journal of hypertension · 2021Article
- Sex differences in stroke co-morbidities.Experimental neurology · 2020Review
- Choices for long-term hypertensive control in patients after first-ever hemorrhagic stroke: a nationwide cohort study.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2018Article
- Gender Differences in Antihypertensive Treatment: Myths or Legends?High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2016Review
- Women's Expectations for Breast Cancer Prevention and Early Detection: High Expectations Can Be Achieved.The oncologist · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) was a randomized, double-blind, practice-based, active-control, comparative effectiveness trial in 33,357 high-risk hypertensive participants. ALLHAT compared cardiovascular disease outcomes in participants initially treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril), a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), or a thiazide-type diuretic (chlorthalidone). We report stroke outcomes in 1517 participants in-trial and 1596 additional participants during post-trial passive surveillance, for a total follow-up of 8-13 years. Stroke rates were higher with lisinopril (6-year rate/100 = 6.4) than with chlorthalidone (5.8) or amlodipine (5.5) in-trial but not including post-trial (10-year rates/100 = 13.2 [chlorthalidone], 13.1[amlodipine], and 13.7 [lisinopril]). In-trial differences were driven by race (race-by-lisinopril/chlorthalidone interaction P = .005, race-by-amlodipine/lisinopril interaction P = .012) and gender (gender-by-lisinopril/amlodipine interaction P = .041), separately. No treatment differences overall, or by race or gender, were detected over the 10-year period. No differences appeared among treatment groups in adjusted risk of all-cause mortality including post-trial for participants with nonfatal in-trial strokes. Among Blacks and women, lisinopril was less effective in preventing stroke in-trial than either chlorthalidone or amlodipine, even after adjusting for differences in systolic blood pressure. These differences abated by the end of the post-trial period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.