HOPE-3 (BP lowering)
Clinical Question
In patients without CVD with 1+ CV risk factors, does the indiscriminate use of a fixed "medium" dose of candesartan + HCTZ irrespective of BP reduce the risk of CVD?
Bottom Line
In this population of patients without CVD at mostly intermediate risk, a fixed "medium" dose of candesartan + HCTZ did not lower the risk of CVD over ~5 years.
Possible explanations for the results of this study include already-low baseline CV risk and BP and suboptimal BP-lowering agents as intervention (amlodipine chlorthalidone, &/or an ACEI would have been more appropriate based on prior evidence). As a result, this study complements, rather than conflicts with, similar studies such as the well-publicized SPRINT trial.
Design
2x2 factorial, allocation-concealed RCT with "everybody" blinded, low loss-to-follow-up (<1%), and analyzed using the intention-to-treat population.
Special notes:
- Pre-enrollment run-in phase: Single-blind treatment with both HOPE-3 active treatments (BP- & cholesterol-lowering) x4 weeks. Advanced to randomization if:
- Took at least 80% of doses
- Tolerated regimen without unacceptable adverse events
- Power calculation: Based on described assumptions, inclusion of 12,700 participants should rule out relative risk reduction by 22.5% with candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide
- Change to pre-defined outcomes:
- Single primary outcome changed to 2 co-primary outcomes (done before investigators saw unblinded data)
Patients and Setting
- 21 countries, 228 centers
- April 2007 - November 2010
- Inclusion criteria:
- Men 55+ y/o and women 65+ y/o + 1 additional CV risk factor:
- FHx: Premature CHD in 1o-degree relative (age <55 in men or <65 in women)
- SHx: Current/recent smoking (regular tobacco within 5 years)
- O/E: Waist/hip ratio >89 in men and >84 in women
- Labs:
- Low HDL (<1.0 mmol/L in men, <1.3 mmol/L in women)
- Renal dysfunction (microalbuminuria, eGFR <60 mL/min or SCr >124 micromol/L)
- Dysglycemia (impaired fasting glucose or glucose tolerance test, but not diabetes requiring more than 1 oral antihypoglycemic) Women 60-6
- Women 60-64 y/o with 2 additional CV risk factors
- NOTE: BP not included as a CV risk factor for eligibility, & no minimum BP criteria for enrollment
- Men 55+ y/o and women 65+ y/o + 1 additional CV risk factor:
- Exclusion criteria:
- PMHx:
- Manifest atherothrombotic CVD
- Clear indication or contraindication for statin &/or ACEI/ARB/thiazide, as determined by subject's own local MD
- Symptomatic hypotension
- Chronic liver disease or abnormal liver enzymes (i.e. ALT or AST >3x ULN)
- Severe renal impairment (calculated CrCl <30 mL/min/1.73 m^2 or SCr >264 micromol/L
- Inflammatory muscle disease or CK >3x ULN
- Significant psychiatric illness, senility, dementia, ETOH or substance abuse
- Concurrent meds:
- Cyclosporine, or a condition likely to result in organ transplant & need for cyclosporine
- ACEI, ARB, thiazide
- Statin or fibrate (patients taking other cholesterol-lowering drugs could be enrolled)
- Enrolled in other drug study
- PMHx:
- 14,682 entered run-in phase -> 12,705 (86.5%) enrolled
- Average patient:
- 65.7 y/o
- 46% female
- Race: 29% Chinese, 27% Hispanic, 20% White, 15% South Asian, <2% Black
- Enrollment CV risk factors:
- 26% with FHx premature CHD
- 28% current/recent smoking
- 87% with elevated waist/hip ratio (mean BMI 27)
- 36% with low HDL
- <3% with renal dysfunction
- 13% with impaired glucose, 6% with diabetes
- BP 138/82 mm Hg (38% with history of HTN)
- SCr: 80 micromol/L
- Lipids: Total cholesterol 5.2 mmol/L, HDL 1.17 mmol/L, LDL 3.29 mmol/L
- Fasting plasma glucose: 5.3 mmol/L
- Baseline meds
- Any BP-lowering drug 22%
- CCB 15%
- Beta-blocker 8%
- ASA 10%
- Any BP-lowering drug 22%
Intervention and Control
- Intervention: Single-tablet combination of candesartan 16 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg PO once daily
- Adherence: 88% @ 1 year, 84% @ 3 years, 75% @ 5 years, 77% @ end of trial
- Mean BP decrease from baseline: 10/6 mm Hg
- Control: Matching placebo
- Adherence: 88% @ 1 year, 83% @ 3 years, 75% @ 5 years, 76% @ end of trial
- Mean systolic BP decrease from baseline: 4/3 mm Hg
- Co-interventions common to both groups:
- Randomized to rosuvastatin 10 mg PO daily or placebo
- Individualized structured lifestyle advice
- Follow-up:
- Visits q6 weeks x6 months, then q6 months
- Monitoring parameters: Adherence, safety, trial outcomes
- BP measurement
- q visit x1 year, then q1 year
- Using Omron automated device
- Average of 2 measurements after 5 min of quiet rest
- Visits q6 weeks x6 months, then q6 months
Outcomes
- @ median follow-up 5.6 years
- Mean BP 6/3 mmHg lower with intervention vs control
- No statistically significant difference in any primary or secondary outcome
- Subgroup analyses:
- 16+ performed
- Significant difference in efficacy based on tertile of SBP (<132, 132-143, >143), p for interaction = 0.02 & 0.009, respectively, for each coprimary outcome
- Benefit if baseline SBP > ~140
- No effect, or possible harm if baseline SBP <140
- No difference in effect based on other subgroups (baseline diastolic BP, +/- rosuvastatin, age, baseline CV risk or LDL, etc)
Key Considerations
Patients: This trial evaluated a "minimal investigation" preventative philosophy of management. Patient were enrolled based on age and presence of 1+ other CV risk factors; CV risk calculators were not used to determine study eligibility. Individual risk scores have varying impact on CV risk (e.g. a 30-year smoking history increases CV risk substantially more than a fasting plasma glucose of 6.5 mmol/L). In practice, a more nuanced assessment of CV risk incorporating a CV risk calculator, other conditions and medications with impact on CV risk will better capture patients who may benefit from BP lowering.
Intervention: The "neutral results" of this trial may be due to suboptimal BP-lowering therapy. For thiazides, far more robust evidence of lowering CV events exists for chlorthalidone (ALLHAT, SHEP) & indapamide (ADVANCE, HYVET, PROGRESS]) than HCTZ, in addition to greater reductions in 24h BP on ambulatory monitoring. Candesartan has the advantage of not causing an "ACEI cough", but also has a less-robust evidence base than ACE inhibitors such as ramipril (used in the original HOPE trial).
Summary author: Ricky Turgeon BSc(Pharm), ACPR, PharmD
Summary date: 4 May 2016