Gareth Beevers

Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol

BACKGROUND Blood pressure reduction achieved with beta-blockers and diuretics is the best recorded intervention to date for prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and death in patients with hypertension. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a strong independent indicator of risk of cardiovascular morbidity and death. We aimed to establish whether selective blocking of angiotensin II improves LVH beyond reducing blood pressure and, consequently, reduces cardiovascular morbidity and death. METHODS We did a double-masked, randomised, parallel-group trial in 9193 participants aged 55-80 years with essential hypertension (sitting blood pressure 160-200/95-115 mm Hg) and LVH ascertained by electrocardiography (ECG). We assigned participants once daily losartan-based or atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment for at least 4 years and until 1040 patients had a primary cardiovascular event (death, myocardial infarction, or stroke). We used Cox regression analysis to compare regimens. FINDINGS Blood pressure fell by 30.2/16.6 (SD 18.5/10.1) and 29.1/16.8 mm Hg (19.2/10.1) in the losartan and atenolol groups, respectively. The primary composite endpoint occurred in 508 losartan (23.8 per 1000 patient-years) and 588 atenolol patients (27.9 per 1000 patient-years; relative risk 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.98, p=0.021). 204 losartan and 234 atenolol patients died from cardiovascular disease (0.89, 0.73-1.07, p=0.206); 232 and 309, respectively, had fatal or non-fatal stroke (0.75, 0.63-0.89, p=0.001); and myocardial infarction (non-fatal and fatal) occurred in 198 and 188, respectively (1.07, 0.88-1.31, p=0.491). New-onset diabetes was less frequent with losartan. Interpretation Losartan prevents more cardiovascular morbidity and death than atenolol for a similar reduction in blood pressure and is better tolerated. Losartan seems to confer benefits beyond reduction in blood pressure.

Prevention of coronary and stroke events with atorvastatin in hypertensive patients who have average or lower-than-average cholesterol concentrations, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial—Lipid Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND The lowering of cholesterol concentrations in individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease improves outcome. No study, however, has assessed benefits of cholesterol lowering in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) in hypertensive patients who are not conventionally deemed dyslipidaemic. METHODS Of 19342 hypertensive patients (aged 40-79 years with at least three other cardiovascular risk factors) randomised to one of two antihypertensive regimens in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial, 10305 with non-fasting total cholesterol concentrations 6.5 mmol/L or less were randomly assigned additional atorvastatin 10 mg or placebo. These patients formed the lipid-lowering arm of the study. We planned follow-up for an average of 5 years, the primary endpoint being non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD. Data were analysed by intention to treat. FINDINGS Treatment was stopped after a median follow-up of 3.3 years. By that time, 100 primary events had occurred in the atorvastatin group compared with 154 events in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.64 [95% CI 0.50-0.83], p=0.0005). This benefit emerged in the first year of follow-up. There was no significant heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Fatal and non-fatal stroke (89 atorvastatin vs 121 placebo, 0.73 [0.56-0.96], p=0.024), total cardiovascular events (389 vs 486, 0.79 [0.69-0.90], p=0.0005), and total coronary events (178 vs 247, 0.71 [0.59-0.86], p=0.0005) were also significantly lowered. There were 185 deaths in the atorvastatin group and 212 in the placebo group (0.87 [0.71-1.06], p=0.16). Atorvastatin lowered total serum cholesterol by about 1.3 mmol/L compared with placebo at 12 months, and by 1.1 mmol/L after 3 years of follow-up. INTERPRETATION The reductions in major cardiovascular events with atorvastatin are large, given the short follow-up time. These findings may have implications for future lipid-lowering guidelines.

Prevention of Coronary and Stroke Events with Atorvastatin in Hypertensive Patients who have Average or Lower-than-Average Cholesterol Concentrations, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial— Lipid Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial

SummaryBackground The lowering of cholesterol concentrations in individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease improves outcome. No study, however, has assessed benefits of cholesterol lowering in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) in hypertensive patients who are not conventionally deemed dyslipidaemic. Methods Of 19 342 hypertensive patients (aged 40–79 years with at least three other cardiovascular risk factors) randomised to one of two antihypertensive regimens in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial, 10 305 with nonfasting total cholesterol concentrations 6.5 mmol/L or less were randomly assigned additional atorvastatin 10 mg or placebo. These patients formed the lipid-lowering arm of the study. We planned follow-up for an average of 5 years, the primary endpoint being non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD. Data were analysed by intention to treat. Findings Treatment was stopped after a median follow-up of 3.3 years. By that time, 100 primary events had occurred in the atorvastatin group compared with 154 events in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.64 [95% CI 0.50–0.83], p = 0.0005). This benefit emerged in the first year of follow-up. There was no significant heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Fatal and non-fatal stroke (89 atorvastatin vs 121 placebo, 0.73 [0.56–0.96], p = 0.024), total cardiovascular events (389 vs 486, 0.79 [0.69–0.90], p = 0.0005), and total coronary events (178 vs 247, 0.71 [0.59–0.86], p = 0.0005) were also significantly lowered. There were 185 deaths in the atorvastatin group and 212 in the placebo group (0.87 [0.71–1.06], p = 0.16). Atorvastatin lowered total serum cholesterol by about 1.3 mmol/L compared with placebo at 12 months, and by 1.1 mmol/L after 3 years of follow-up. Interpretation The reductions in major cardiovascular events with atorvastatin are large, given the short follow-up time. These findings may have implications for future lipid-lowering guidelines.

Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol

BACKGROUND The most suitable antihypertensive drug to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with hypertension and diabetes is unclear. In prespecified analyses, we compared the effects of losartan and atenolol on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in diabetic patients. METHODS As part of the LIFE study, in a double-masked, randomised, parallel-group trial, we assigned a group of 1195 patients with diabetes, hypertension, and signs of left-ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) on electrocardiograms losartan-based or atenolol-based treatment. Mean age of patients was 67 years (SD 7) and mean blood pressure 177/96 mm Hg (14/10) after placebo run-in. We followed up patients for at least 4 years (mean 4.7 years [1.1]). We used Cox regression analysis with baseline Framingham risk score and electrocardiogram-LVH as covariates to compare the effects of the drugs on the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction). FINDINGS Mean blood pressure fell to 146/79 mm Hg (17/11) in losartan patients and 148/79 mm Hg (19/11) in atenolol patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 103 patients assigned losartan (n=586) and 139 assigned atenolol (n=609); relative risk 0.76 (95% CI 0.58-.98), p=0.031. 38 and 61 patients in the losartan and atenolol groups, respectively, died from cardiovascular disease; 0.63 (0.42-0.95), p=0.028. Mortality from all causes was 63 and 104 in losartan and atenolol groups, respectively; 0.61 (0.45-0.84), p=0.002. INTERPRETATION Losartan was more effective than atenolol in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as well as mortality from all causes in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and LVH. Losartan seems to have benefits beyond blood pressure reduction.

Risk of new-onset diabetes in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study

Background There has been uncertainty about the risk of new-onset diabetes in hypertensive individuals treated with different blood pressure-decreasing drugs. Objectives To study this risk in hypertensive individuals who were at risk of developing diabetes mellitus in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. Methods In the LIFE study, with a double-masked, randomized, parallel-group design, 9193 patients (46% men) with hypertension (mean age 67 years, average pressure 174/98 mmHg after placebo run-in) and electrocardiogram-documented left ventricular hypertrophy were randomly assigned to once-daily losartan- or atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment and followed for at least 4 years (mean 4.8 years). At baseline, 7998 patients did not have diabetes mellitus and were thus at risk of developing this condition during the study. To demonstrate ability to predict new-onset diabetes, we developed a prediction score using the significant variables from multivariate analyses (serum glucose, body mass index, serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure and history of prior use of antihypertensive drugs). Results There was a steadily increasing risk of diabetes with increasing level-of-risk score; patients in the highest quartile were at considerably greater risk than those in the three lower ones. Treatment with losartan was associated with lower risk of development of diabetes within each of the four quartiles of the risk score. As previously reported, new-onset diabetes mellitus occurred in 242 patients receiving losartan (13.0 per 1000 person-years) and 320 receiving atenolol (17.5 per 1000 person-years); relative risk 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.88;P < 0.001). Conclusions New-onset diabetes could be strongly predicted by a newly developed risk score using baseline serum glucose concentration (non-fasting), body mass index, serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration, systolic blood pressure and history of prior use of antihypertensive drugs. Independently of these risk factors, fewer hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy developed diabetes mellitus if they were treated with losartan than if they were treated with atenolol.

Management guidelines in essential hypertension: report of the second working party of the British Hypertension Society.

Several important new issues have arisen in the management of patients with hypertension. A working party of the British Hypertension Society has therefore reviewed available intervention studies on anti-hypertensive treatment and made recommendations on blood pressure thresholds for intervention, on non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, and on treatment goals. This report also provides guidelines on blood pressure measurement, essential investigations, referrals for specialist advice, follow up, and stopping treatment.

Rationale, design, methods and baseline demography of participants of the Anglo-scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial

Objective To test the primary hypothesis that a newer antihypertensive treatment regimen (calcium channel blocker ± an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor) is more effective than an older regimen (β-blocker ± a diuretic) in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). To test a second primary hypothesis that a statin compared with placebo will further protect against CHD endpoints in hypertensive subjects with a total cholesterol ⩽ 6.5 mmol/l. Design Prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint trial with a double-blinded 2 × 2 factorial component. Setting Patients were recruited mainly from general practices. Patients Men and women aged 40–79 were eligible if their blood pressure was ⩾160 mmHg systolic or ⩾ 100 mmHg diastolic (untreated) or ⩾140 mmHg systolic or ⩾ 90 mmHg diastolic (treated) at randomization. Interventions Patients received either amlodipine (5/10 mg) ± perindopril (4/8 mg) or atenolol (50/100 mg) ± bendroflumethiazide (1.25/2.5 mg) +K+ with further therapy as required to reach a blood pressure of ⩽140 mmHg systolic and 90 mmHg diastolic. Patients with a total cholesterol of ⩽ 6.5 mmol/l were further randomized to receive either atorvastatin 10 mg or placebo daily. Main outcome measure Non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and fatal coronary heart disease (CHD). Results 19 342 men and women were initially randomized, of these 10 297 were also randomized into the lipid-lowering limb. All patients had three or more additional cardiovascular risk factors. Conclusions The study has 80% power (at the 5% level) to detect a relative difference of 20% in CHD endpoints between the calcium channel blocker-based regimen and the β-blocker-based regimen. The lipid-lowering limb of the study has 90% power at the 1% level to detect a relative difference of 30% in CHD endpoints between groups.

ABC of hypertension: The pathophysiology of hypertension

There is still much uncertainty about the pathophysiology of hypertension. A small number of patients (between 2% and 5%) have an underlying renal or adrenal disease as the cause for their raised blood pressure. In the remainder, however, no clear single identifiable cause is found and their condition is labelled “essential hypertension”. A number of physiological mechanisms are involved in the maintenance of normal blood pressure, and their derangement may play a part in the development of essential hypertension. This article has been adapted from the newly published 4th edition of ABC of Hypertension . The book is available from the BMJ bookshop and at http://www.bmjbooks.com/ The relative frequency of primary and secondary hypertension It is probable that a great many interrelated factors contribute to the raised blood pressure in hypertensive patients, and their relative roles may differ between individuals. Among the factors that have been intensively studied are salt intake, obesity and insulin resistance, the renin-angiotensin system, and the sympathetic nervous system. In the past few years, other factors have been evaluated, including genetics, endothelial dysfunction (as manifested by changes in endothelin and nitric oxide), low birth weight and intrauterine nutrition, and neurovascular anomalies. #### Physiological mechanisms involved in development of essential hypertension Maintenance of a normal blood pressure is dependent on the balance between the cardiac output and peripheral vascular resistance. Most patients with essential hypertension have a normal cardiac output but a raised peripheral resistance. Peripheral resistance is determined not by large arteries or the capillaries but by small arterioles, the walls of which contain smooth muscle cells. Contraction of smooth muscle cells is thought to be related to a rise in intracellular calcium concentration, which may explain the vasodilatory …

ABC of hypertension: Blood pressure measurement : Part I—Sphygmomanometry: factors common to all techniques

Most devices for measuring blood pressure are dependent on one common feature, namely, occluding the artery of an extremity (arm, wrist, finger, or leg) with an inflatable cuff to measure blood pressure either oscillometrically, or by detection of Korotkoff sounds. Other techniques, which are not dependent on limb occlusion, such as pulse-waveform analysis, can also be used, but these have little application in clinical practice. The array of techniques available today owe their origins to the conventional technique of auscultatory blood pressure measurement, and these new techniques must indeed be shown to be as accurate as the traditional mercury sphygmomanometer. Since the introduction of sphygmo- manometry, mercury and aneroid sphygmomanometers have been the most popular devices for measuring blood pressures. This article has been adapted from the newly published 4th edition of ABC of Hypertension . The book is available from the BMJ bookshop and at http://www.bmjbooks.com/ Mercury sphygmomanometer No matter which device is used to measure blood pressure, it must be recognised that blood pressure is a variable haemodynamic phenomenon, which is influenced by many factors, not least being the circumstances of measurement itself. These influences on blood pressure can be significant, often accounting for rises in systolic blood pressure greater than 20 mm Hg, and if they are ignored, or unrecognised, hypertension will be diagnosed erroneously and inappropriate management instituted. These factors have to be carefully considered in all circumstances of blood pressure measurement—self measurement by patients, conventional measurement, measurement with automated devices whether in a doctors surgery, an ambulance, a pharmacy, or in hospital using sophisticated technology. 1 2 The observer must be aware of the considerable variability that may occur in blood pressure from moment to moment with respiration, emotion, exercise, meals, tobacco, alcohol, temperature, bladder distension, and pain, and that blood pressure is also influenced …

ABC of hypertension: Blood pressure measurement. Part II-conventional sphygmomanometry: technique of auscultatory blood pressure measurement.

This article has been adapted from the newly published 4th edition of ABC of Hypertension. The book is available from the BMJ bookshop and at www.bmjbooks.com