The Lancet SEPTEMBER 10, 2005

Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA)

Dahlöf B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers DG, Caulfield M, Collins R, Kjeldsen SE, Kristinsson A, McInnes GT, Mehlsen J, Nieminen M, O'Brien E, Ostergren J, for the ASCOT Investigators

Bottom Line

The ASCOT-BPLA trial demonstrated that a newer antihypertensive regimen based on amlodipine and perindopril provided superior protection against cardiovascular events and mortality compared to an older beta-blocker/diuretic-based regimen in hypertensive patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors.

Key Findings

1. The primary endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease showed a 10% risk reduction in the amlodipine/perindopril arm, though this did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.79-1.02; P=0.12).
2. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the amlodipine/perindopril group, with an 11% reduction compared to the atenolol/bendroflumethiazide group (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.81-0.99; P=0.025).
3. Cardiovascular mortality was reduced by 24% in the amlodipine/perindopril arm compared to the comparator arm (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.90; P=0.0010).
4. Total cardiovascular events and procedures were significantly reduced by 16% in the amlodipine/perindopril arm (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.78-0.90; P<0.0001).
5. New-onset diabetes was significantly less frequent in the amlodipine/perindopril arm compared with the atenolol/bendroflumethiazide arm (5.9% vs 8.3%; HR 0.70; P<0.0001).

Study Design

Design
RCT
Open-Label
Sample
19,257
Patients
Duration
5.5 yr
Median
Setting
Multicenter, Europe
Population Patients aged 40-79 years with hypertension and at least three additional cardiovascular risk factors, with no prior history of coronary heart disease.
Intervention Amlodipine (5-10 mg) with the addition of perindopril (4-8 mg) as required to reach blood pressure targets.
Comparator Atenolol (50-100 mg) with the addition of bendroflumethiazide (1.25-2.5 mg) and potassium as required to reach blood pressure targets.
Outcome Nonfatal myocardial infarction (including silent MI) and fatal coronary heart disease.

Study Limitations

The trial was terminated early by the Data Safety and Monitoring Board due to a significant difference in all-cause mortality, which may have limited the power to detect a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint.
The open-label design of the antihypertensive component introduces the possibility of performance bias.
The observed differences in clinical outcomes may be partially explained by a small but statistically significant difference in achieved blood pressure between the two treatment regimens.

Clinical Significance

The results of ASCOT-BPLA significantly influenced clinical practice guidelines, leading to a shift away from beta-blockers as first-line therapy for uncomplicated hypertension and favoring modern regimens such as calcium channel blockers and ACE inhibitors, particularly in patients with multiple metabolic risk factors.

Historical Context

At the inception of the ASCOT trial in the late 1990s, beta-blockers and diuretics were the established 'traditional' first-line therapies for hypertension. The study sought to challenge this paradigm by evaluating whether newer agents, specifically calcium channel blockers and ACE inhibitors, offered better cardiovascular protection.

Guided Discussion

High-yield insights from every perspective

Med Student
Medical Student

The ASCOT-BPLA trial compared a regimen of amlodipine plus perindopril against atenolol plus a diuretic. From a physiological standpoint, why might the combination of a Calcium Channel Blocker (CCB) and an ACE inhibitor be more effective at reducing peripheral resistance than a beta-blocker alone?

Key Response

CCBs like amlodipine cause direct vasodilation of peripheral arterioles, while ACE inhibitors like perindopril inhibit the production of Angiotensin II, a potent vasoconstrictor, and prevent the breakdown of bradykinin. This dual mechanism targets two distinct pathways of hypertension—calcium-mediated contraction and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS)—providing more comprehensive reduction in systemic vascular resistance compared to the decreased cardiac output and renin suppression primarily offered by beta-blockers.

Resident
Resident

ASCOT-BPLA observed a significant increase in new-onset diabetes in the atenolol/thiazide arm compared to the amlodipine/perindopril arm. How should this finding influence your choice of antihypertensive for a patient with metabolic syndrome?

Key Response

Atenolol (a traditional beta-blocker) and thiazide diuretics are known to impair insulin sensitivity and glucose metabolism, whereas ACE inhibitors may improve insulin sensitivity and CCBs are metabolically neutral. In patients with metabolic syndrome or pre-diabetes, the amlodipine/perindopril regimen is preferred because it significantly reduces the risk of developing type 2 diabetes (30% reduction in ASCOT-BPLA), thereby lowering the long-term cumulative cardiovascular risk.

Fellow
Fellow

Despite only a 2.7/1.9 mmHg difference in brachial blood pressure between the two groups, the amlodipine-based arm had significantly better outcomes. Based on the CAFÉ substudy, how does the concept of 'central aortic pressure' explain this discrepancy?

Key Response

The CAFÉ (Conduit Artery Function Evaluation) substudy revealed that the amlodipine/perindopril regimen significantly reduced central aortic systolic pressure and pulse pressure more than the atenolol/thiazide regimen, despite similar brachial BP readings. Central pressure is a more accurate determinant of the load on the heart and brain; beta-blockers like atenolol can increase wave reflection from the periphery, which 'boosts' central pressure even if arm pressure appears controlled, explaining why the newer regimen provided superior cardioprotection.

Attending
Attending

ASCOT-BPLA was a landmark trial that essentially ended the era of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for uncomplicated hypertension. In modern practice, for which specific hypertensive populations do you still prioritize the older 'atenolol-like' approach over the 'ASCOT-preferred' CCB/ACEi combination?

Key Response

The ASCOT-BPLA findings shifted the paradigm, but beta-blockers remain first-line for patients with 'compelling indications' not primarily driven by blood pressure alone, such as those with symptomatic heart failure (HFrEF), post-myocardial infarction (for remodeling and arrhythmia prevention), or rate control for atrial fibrillation. For the general hypertensive population with multiple risk factors but without these specific cardiac conditions, the ASCOT data strongly supports avoiding the beta-blocker/diuretic combination due to inferior stroke and mortality outcomes.

Scholarly Review

Critical appraisal through the lens of expert reviewers and guideline development

PhD
PhD

ASCOT-BPLA utilized a PROBE (Prospective, Randomized, Open, Blinded End-point) design. Evaluate the trade-offs of this design in terms of internal versus external validity compared to a traditional double-blind trial.

Key Response

The PROBE design enhances external validity (generalizability) because it more closely mimics real-world clinical practice where physicians and patients know the medications and can titrate dosages based on side effects and efficacy. However, it threatens internal validity through potential 'ascertainment bias' or 'performance bias' in how auxiliary care is provided. To mitigate this, ASCOT used a blinded independent end-point committee to ensure that the primary outcome assessment remained objective, attempting to balance practical trial execution with rigorous statistical results.

Journal Editor
Journal Editor

The trial was terminated early by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) due to a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in the amlodipine/perindopril arm. As a reviewer, what concerns would you raise regarding the reporting of secondary endpoints following early termination?

Key Response

Early termination for benefit often leads to an overestimation of treatment effects, particularly for secondary endpoints that may not have reached stable event rates. This phenomenon, sometimes called 'random high,' can distort the Hazard Ratios. A rigorous reviewer would flag that while the mortality benefit was clear, the precise magnitude of benefit for less frequent events (like unstable angina or peripheral arterial disease) might be less reliable than if the trial had proceeded to its planned completion.

Guideline Committee
Guideline Committee

ASCOT-BPLA is a primary driver for the NICE (UK) and ESC/ESH guidelines moving beta-blockers to fourth-line therapy. How do these findings compare with the US ACC/AHA 2017 guidelines regarding the 'initial' choice of antihypertensive therapy?

Key Response

Following ASCOT, NICE guidelines relegated beta-blockers to 'Step 4' (resistant hypertension). The 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines similarly do not list beta-blockers as one of the four primary first-line classes (ACEi, ARB, CCB, and Diuretics) for the general population. However, the ACC/AHA guidelines maintain a higher preference for thiazide-like diuretics as first-line options than some European counterparts, whereas ASCOT specifically highlighted the superiority of the CCB/ACEi combination over the older diuretic/beta-blocker pairing, particularly regarding metabolic profiles and stroke prevention.

Clinical Landscape

Noteworthy Related Trials

2002

ALLHAT Trial

n = 33,357 · JAMA

Tested

Amlodipine, lisinopril, or chlorthalidone

Population

Patients aged 55 or older with hypertension and at least one other coronary heart disease risk factor

Comparator

Chlorthalidone was the primary reference, compared against lisinopril and amlodipine

Endpoint

Combined fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Key result: Thiazide-type diuretics were superior to CCBs and ACE inhibitors in preventing one or more forms of cardiovascular disease.
2002

LIFE Trial

n = 9,193 · Lancet

Tested

Losartan-based regimen

Population

Patients with hypertension and electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy

Comparator

Atenolol-based regimen

Endpoint

Composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke

Key result: Losartan reduced the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, primarily driven by a reduction in stroke, compared to atenolol.
2007

ADVANCE Trial

n = 11,140 · Lancet

Tested

Perindopril-indapamide combination

Population

Patients with type 2 diabetes

Comparator

Placebo

Endpoint

Composite of major macrovascular and microvascular events

Key result: Routine administration of a perindopril–indapamide combination reduced the risks of major vascular events and death in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Tailored to your role

Want this tailored to you?

Add your specialty or training stage to get role-specific takeaways and more questions.

Personalize this analysis