Reduction in cardiovascular risk using proactive multifactorial intervention versus usual care in younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients in the CRUCIAL trial. (May 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kim, Jae-Hyung; Zamorano, José; Erdine, Serap; Pavia, Abel; Al-Khadra, Ayman; Sutradhar, Santosh; Yunis, Carla
• Is Part Of: Current medical research and opinion. Volume 29:Number 5(2013:May)
• Page Start: 453
• Page End: 463
• Publication Date: 2013-05
• Subjects: Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Therapeutics -- Periodicals; 615.5
• DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2013.781503
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-7995

Abstract

&lt;abstract&gt; &lt;title&gt;Abstract&lt;/title&gt; &lt;sec id=&quot;ss1&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt;Objective:&lt;/title&gt; &lt;p&gt;To compare the reduction in calculated Framingham 10 year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk after 52 weeks&#39; intervention with a proactive multifactorial intervention (PMI) strategy (based on single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin [SPAA]) versus continuing usual care (UC) (based on investigators&#39; best clinical judgment) among younger (&amp;lt;65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/sec&gt; &lt;sec id=&quot;ss2&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt;Research design and methods:&lt;/title&gt; &lt;p&gt;Sub-analysis of the Cluster Randomized Usual Care versus Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-term risk (CRUCIAL) trial. Eligible patients had hypertension and ≥3 cardiovascular risk factors.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/sec&gt; &lt;sec id=&quot;ss3&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt;Main outcome measure:&lt;/title&gt; &lt;p&gt;Treatment-related reduction in calculated Framingham 10 year CHD risk between baseline and Week 52 in younger and older patients.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/sec&gt; &lt;sec id=&quot;ss4&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt;Results:&lt;/title&gt; &lt;p&gt;Nine hundred patients (63.5%) were &amp;lt;65 years (mean age 54.2 years, 57.4% men) and 517 patients (36.5%) were ≥65 years (mean age 70.5 years, 42.7% men). Younger patients had lower mean baseline CHD risk versus older patients (17.1% vs. 22.6%). A greater reduction in calculated CHD risk at Week 52 was observed in the PMI versus the UC arm in both younger (−33.2% vs. −2.9%, &lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001) and older (−32.7% vs. −5.7%, &lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001) patients. Least-squares mean treatment differences (PMI vs. UC) in percentage change from baseline in calculated CHD risk were similar in younger and older patients (−26.3% vs. −25.7%, age interaction &lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt; = 0.887). CHD risk reduction was slightly greater among younger men than younger women (−29.3 vs. −23.9, gender interaction &lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt; = 0.062). A low proportion of patients discontinued the PMI strategy due to adverse events in both age groups (5.8% vs. 6.1%, respectively). Study limitations included ad-hoc (not pre-specified) sub-group analysis and short duration of follow-up.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/sec&gt; &lt;sec id=&quot;ss5&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/title&gt; &lt;p&gt;The PMI strategy based on the inclusion of SPAA in the treatment regimen is more effective than UC in reducing calculated CHD risk. This strategy may be considered as the treatment of choice in younger and older hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/sec&gt; &lt;/abstract&gt;