Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,499

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Major Cardiovascular Events in Hypertensive Patients Randomized to Doxazosin vs Chlorthalidone: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)

The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group·2000·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
DOI 10.1001/jama.283.15.1967
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

ContextHypertension is associated with a significantly increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Only diuretics and β-blockers have been shown to reduce this risk in long-term clinical trials. Whether newer antihypertensive agents reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare the effect of doxazosin, an α-blocker, with chlorthalidone, a diuretic, on incidence of CVD in patients with hypertension as part of a study of 4 types of antihypertensive drugs: chlorthalidone, doxazosin, amlodipine, and lisinopril.DesignRandomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial, the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial, initiated in February 1994. In January 2000, after an interim analysis, an independent data review committee recommended discontinuing the doxazosin treatment arm based on comparisons with chlorthalidone. Therefore, outcomes data presented herein reflect follow-up through December 1999.SettingA total of 625 centers in the United States and Canada.ParticipantsA total of 24,335 patients (aged ≥55 years) with hypertension and at least 1 other coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factor who received either doxazosin or chlorthalidone.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to receive chlorthalidone, 12.5 to 25 mg/d (n=15,268), or doxazosin, 2 to 8 mg/d (n=9067), for a planned follow-up of 4 to 8 years.Main Outcome MeasuresThe primary outcome measure was fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), analyzed by intent to treat; secondary outcome measures included all-cause mortality, stroke, and combined CVD (CHD death, nonfatal MI, stroke, angina, coronary revascularization, congestive heart failure [CHF], and peripheral arterial disease); compared by the chlorthalidone group vs the doxazosin group.ResultsMedian follow-up was 3.3 years. A total of 365 patients in the doxazosin group and 608 in the chlorthalidone group had fatal CHD or nonfatal MI, with no difference in risk between the groups (relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.17; P=.71). Total mortality did not differ between the doxazosin and chlorthalidone arms (4-year rates, 9.62% and 9.08%, respectively; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.90-1.15; P=.56.) The doxazosin arm, compared with the chlorthalidone arm, had a higher risk of stroke (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.40; P=.04) and combined CVD (4-year rates, 25.45% vs 21.76%; RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.17-1.33; P<.001). Considered separately, CHF risk was doubled (4-year rates, 8.13% vs 4.45%; RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.79-2.32; P<.001); RRs for angina, coronary revascularization, and peripheral arterial disease were 1.16 (P<.001), 1.15 (P=.05), and 1.07 (P=.50), respectively.ConclusionOur data indicate that compared with doxazosin, chlorthalidone yields essentially equal risk of CHD death/nonfatal MI but significantly reduces the risk of combined CVD events, particularly CHF, in high-risk hypertensive patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.283.15.1967

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2000-04-19
Volume
283
Issue
15
Pages
1967-1975
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
  • 1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.283.15.1967
OpenAlex
W4235435263
Cited by
1,499
References
1
FWCI
98.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.