Stevo Julius

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.

Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial

BACKGROUND Despite treatment, there is often a higher incidence of cardiovascular complications in patients with hypertension than in normotensive individuals. Inadequate reduction of their blood pressure is a likely cause, but the optimum target blood pressure is not known. The impact of acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) has never been investigated in patients with hypertension. We aimed to assess the optimum target diastolic blood pressure and the potential benefit of a low dose of acetylsalicylic acid in the treatment of hypertension. METHODS 18790 patients, from 26 countries, aged 50-80 years (mean 61.5 years) with hypertension and diastolic blood pressure between 100 mm Hg and 115 mm Hg (mean 105 mm Hg) were randomly assigned a target diastolic blood pressure. 6264 patients were allocated to the target pressure < or =90 mm Hg, 6264 to < or =85 mm Hg, and 6262 to < or =80 mm Hg. Felodipine was given as baseline therapy with the addition of other agents, according to a five-step regimen. In addition, 9399 patients were randomly assigned 75 mg/day acetylsalicylic acid (Bamycor, Astra) and 9391 patients were assigned placebo. FINDINGS Diastolic blood pressure was reduced by 20.3 mm Hg, 22.3 mm Hg, and 24.3 mm Hg, in the < or =90 mm Hg, < or =85 mm Hg, and < or =80 mm Hg target groups, respectively. The lowest incidence of major cardiovascular events occurred at a mean achieved diastolic blood pressure of 82.6 mm Hg; the lowest risk of cardiovascular mortality occurred at 86.5 mm Hg. Further reduction below these blood pressures was safe. In patients with diabetes mellitus there was a 51% reduction in major cardiovascular events in target group < or =80 mm Hg compared with target group < or =90 mm Hg (p for trend=0.005). Acetylsalicylic acid reduced major cardiovascular events by 15% (p=0.03) and all myocardial infarction by 36% (p=0.002), with no effect on stroke. There were seven fatal bleeds in the acetylsalicylic acid group and eight in the placebo group, and 129 versus 70 non-fatal major bleeds in the two groups, respectively (p<0.001). INTERPRETATION Intensive lowering of blood pressure in patients with hypertension was associated with a low rate of cardiovascular events. The HOT Study shows the benefits of lowering the diastolic blood pressure down to 82.6 mm Hg. Acetylsalicylic acid significantly reduced major cardiovascular events with the greatest benefit seen in all myocardial infarction. There was no effect on the incidence of stroke or fatal bleeds, but non-fatal major bleeds were twice as common.

Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial

BACKGROUND The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test the hypothesis that for the same blood-pressure control, valsartan would reduce cardiac morbidity and mortality more than amlodipine in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS 15?245 patients, aged 50 years or older with treated or untreated hypertension and high risk of cardiac events participated in a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of therapy based on valsartan or amlodipine. Duration of treatment was event-driven and the trial lasted until at least 1450 patients had reached a primary endpoint, defined as a composite of cardiac mortality and morbidity. Patients from 31 countries were followed up for a mean of 4.2 years. FINDINGS Blood pressure was reduced by both treatments, but the effects of the amlodipine-based regimen were more pronounced, especially in the early period (blood pressure 4.0/2.1 mm Hg lower in amlodipine than valsartan group after 1 month; 1.5/1.3 mm Hg after 1 year; p<0.001 between groups). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 810 patients in the valsartan group (10.6%, 25.5 per 1000 patient-years) and 789 in the amlodipine group (10.4%, 24.7 per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.15, p=0.49). INTERPRETATION The main outcome of cardiac disease did not differ between the treatment groups. Unequal reductions in blood pressure might account for differences between the groups in cause-specific outcomes. The findings emphasise the importance of prompt blood-pressure control in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk.

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.

Blood pressure dependent and independent effects of antihypertensive treatment on clinical events in the VALUE Trial

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test whether, for the same achieved blood pressures, regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine would have differing effects on cardiovascular endpoints in high risk hypertension. But inequalities in blood pressure, favouring amlodipine, throughout the multiyear trial precluded comparison of outcomes. A technique of serial median matching, applied at 6 months when treatment adjustments intended to achieve control of blood pressure were complete, created 5006 valsartan-amlodipine patient pairs matched exactly for systolic blood pressure, age, sex, and the presence or absence of previous coronary disease, stroke, or diabetes. Subsequent combined cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality were almost identical in the two cohorts, but admission to hospital for heart failure was significantly lower with valsartan. Reaching blood pressure control (systolic <140 mm Hg) by 6 months, independent of drug type, was associated with significant benefits for subsequent major outcomes; the blood pressure response after just 1 month of treatment predicted events and survival.

Reduction in albuminuria translates to reduction in cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients: losartan intervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension study.

Few data are available to clarify whether changes in albuminuria over time translate to changes in cardiovascular risk. The aim of the present study was to examine whether changes in albuminuria during 4.8 years of antihypertensive treatment were related to changes in risk in 8206 patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. Urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was measured at baseline and annually. Time-varying albuminuria was closely related to risk for the primary composite end point (ie, when UACR decreased during treatment, risk was reduced accordingly). When the population was divided according to median baseline value (1.21 mg/mmol) and median year 1 UACR (0.67 mg/mmol), risk increased stepwise and significantly for the primary composite end point from those with low baseline/low year 1 (5.5%), to low baseline/high year 1 (8.6%), to high baseline/low year 1 (9.4%), and to high baseline/high year 1 (13.5%) values. Similar significant, stepwise increases in risk were seen for the components of the primary composite end point (cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction). The observation that changes in UACR during antihypertensive treatment over time translated to changes in risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality was not explained by in-treatment level of blood pressure. We propose that monitoring of albuminuria should be an integrated part of the management of hypertension. If albuminuria is not decreased by the patient’s current antihypertensive and other treatment, further intervention directed toward blood pressure control and other modifiable risks should be considered.

Albuminuria and Cardiovascular Risk in Hypertensive Patients with Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: The LIFE Study

Context Microalbuminuria is a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Contribution In this large prospective study of hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, increasing microalbuminuria was associated with increasing risks for cardiovascular disease. Risks continuously increased without evidence of a threshold or plateau level. Implications Microalbuminuria assessment in hypertensive patients may improve cardiovascular risk stratification. Cautions The study was based on data collected during a randomized, controlled trial of antihypertensive therapy. Albuminuria was measured as the albumincreatinine ratio in a single spot urine collection. Other than for the study drug received, the authors did not adjust for treatments received during the trial. The Editors Microalbuminuria was first associated with essential hypertension in nondiabetic individuals by Parving and colleagues (1), and subsequent studies (2, 3) confirmed the association. Albuminuria is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease and increased all-cause mortality in relatively unselected (4, 5) or general (6-8) populations, postmenopausal women (9), older people (10, 11), diabetic patients (12, 13), hypertensive patients with or without concomitant diabetes (8, 14, 15), and people with known high risk for cardiovascular disease (16). Left ventricular hypertrophy is an independent predictor of adverse prognosis (17-19) and is related to albumin excretion independent of age, blood pressure, diabetes, race, serum creatinine level, or smoking; these associations suggest parallel cardiac damage and increased renal albumin excretion rate (20). Other studies suggest that albuminuria at levels well below traditional partition values is a risk factor for coronary vascular disease in patients with and without diabetes (16, 21), indicating that the relation between albuminuria and cardiovascular risk from other populations cannot be directly applied to nondiabetic hypertensive patients. More precise information about the relation between albuminuria and cardiovascular risk would not only help clinicians better estimate the patients absolute risk but also strengthen the decision to initiate antihypertensive treatment, since current guidelines consider not only blood pressure but also target organ damage (for example, albuminuria) (22). We conducted a prospective study to determine the albuminuria level at which cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are increased in a large group of hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. In a predefined protocol, we hypothesized that no unique albuminuria threshold predicts increased cardiovascular risk but rather that increasing albuminuria is associated with a graded increase in risk. We anticipated that in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, any threshold identified would be much lower than the threshold traditionally defined in diabetic populations. Methods Patients Participants in our study were outpatients between 55 and 80 years of age. They were recruited from a mix of general and hospital practices and had previously untreated or treated stage II or III hypertension with electrocardiographically confirmed left ventricular hypertrophy (measured according to the product of QRS duration multiplied by Cornell voltage or according to SokolowLyon voltage). The patients were randomly assigned to receive double-blind therapy with losartan or atenolol in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) study (23, 24). Study Design The hypotheses of the current study were prespecified as part of the LIFE protocol. Inclusion criteria were a mean trough sitting systolic blood pressure of 160 to 200 mm Hg or a diastolic blood pressure of 95 to 115 mm Hg after 1 and 2 weeks of single-blind placebo treatment and no other antihypertensive medication at the time of randomization. Exclusion criteria were myocardial infarction or stroke within 6 months, current congestive heart failure or previously known left ventricular ejection fraction less than 0.40, and renal insufficiency (serum creatinine level >160 mmol/L [>1.8 mg/dL]). We excluded patients who had a condition that the treating physician believed required treatment with losartan or another angiotensin II-receptor blocker, atenolol or another -blocker, hydrochlorothiazide, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Patients gave informed consent under protocols approved by the ethics committees of the participating institutions. End Points and Adjudication This study of the 8206 LIFE participants who had baseline albuminuria determinations (>90% of the entire sample) is based on analysis of a primary composite end point (n = 971): the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, fatal or nonfatal stroke, and fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Additional end points were all-cause mortality (n = 703) and the first occurrence of each component of the composite end point, regardless of whether it was preceded by another component of the primary end point: 383 cardiovascular deaths, 479 strokes, and 344 myocardial infarctions. In the nondiabetic subgroup there were 755 composite end points, including 292 cardiovascular deaths, 379 fatal and nonfatal strokes, 261 fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarctions, and 554 all-cause deaths. Investigators reported all end points; source data were verified by independent monitors and were adjudicated by an independent committee on the basis of definitions provided in a predefined end point manual (24). Patients and the investigators reported the prevalences of coronary, cerebral, or peripheral vascular disease and smoking habits. Diabetes was defined according to investigator report and plasma glucose level. The Framingham risk score (25) was estimated from baseline blood pressure, total cholesterol level, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, smoking status, glucose level, and level of left ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiography (ECG). Renal Evaluation On the same day, a spot urine sample was collected as the first morning voiding and the serum creatinine level was measured. Urine albumin concentration was determined by standard methods (26) using a turbidometric method (Hitachi 717 analyzer, Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland) (27) on a single urine specimen. Both serum and urine levels of creatinine were analyzed by using the Jaff reaction without deproteinizing and then quantified by a photometric method using the same analyzer. The ratio of urine albumin (in mg/L) to creatinine concentration (UACR) (in mmol/L) provided a composite measure (in mg/mmol) of renal glomerular capillary permeability that adjusted for urine dilution (28). To derive U.S. measures of UACR (mg/g), UACR in mg/mmoL is multiplied by 8.84. Statistical Analysis We used SPSS software, version 11.0.1 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Illinois), for statistical analyses. The study sample as a whole and the nondiabetic patients were divided into UACR deciles; diabetic patients were divided into UACR quintiles. We used Cox proportional-hazards models to compare hazard ratios among groups and to evaluate the contributions of differences in the degree of left ventricular hypertrophy (both Cornell voltage duration product and SokolowLyon voltage as continuous variables), the Framingham risk score (25), and treatment allocation (losartan or atenolol) as covariates. To express the increase in risk per increase in UACR as a continuous variable, we log-transformed UACR. We used a Cox model in the test for trend and used the decile group as a continuous variable. Hazard ratios from the decile groups were then used to estimate the best-fitting curve (SPSS curve estimation function). Two-tailed P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Role of the Funding Source The funding source had no role in the design, analysis, and reporting of the study or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Results Patient Characteristics Descriptive data for the LIFE study sample (23) and relations of microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria to cardiovascular risk factors have been reported elsewhere (20). Of the 9193 patients participating in the LIFE study, 8206 had the baseline UACR measurements necessary for inclusion in the present study. The mean age (SD) was 66 7 years; 54% of patients were women, and 92% were white. Thirteen percent had diabetes, 13.5% had coronary heart disease, and 7.7% had had a stroke. The mean arterial blood pressure (SD) was 174 14/98 9 mm Hg, the mean serum creatinine level (SD) was 87 20 mmol/L, and the median UACR was 1.28 mg/mmol. Additional baseline characteristics of patients with albuminuria are described elsewhere (20). To stratify risk in hypertensive patients with albuminuria and left ventricular hypertrophy, patients were divided into UACR deciles, with 814 to 821 patients in each group. Patients were followed for a median of 4.8 years and a total of 39 122 patient-years. End point rates were 24.8 per 1000 patient-years of follow-up for the composite endpoint, 9.4 for cardiovascular mortality, 17.6 for all-cause mortality, 11.9 for stroke, and 8.5 for myocardial infarction. Age; sex; race; body mass index; blood pressure; level of left ventricular hypertrophy on ECG; Framingham risk score; prevalence of known diabetes, coronary heart disease, or peripheral vascular disease; and smoking habits did not differ between the patients who provided a urine sample and the 987 patients who did not. The prevalence of history of cerebral vascular disease (13.2% vs. 10.5%; P = 0.029) and mean serum creatinine level (90.0 vs. 86.7 mmol/L; P = 0.001) were higher in patients who did not provide a urine sample than in those who did. When we considered differences in left ventricular mass on ECG, Framingham risk score, and study treatment, patients without a urine sample had a 52% higher all-cause mortality rate (95% CI, 23% to 87%); the rates of t

Heart rate and the cardiovascular risk

In recent years evidence has been accumulating that the heart rate is a major correlate of blood pressure, that it may predict the development of sustained hypertension in subjects with normal or borderline elevated blood pressure values, and that it is associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death. In spite of the evidence physicians tend to overlook these facts, and the heart rate is either ignored or viewed as a particularly benign prognostic sign. The educators in our field also tend to underestimate the value of the topic; most textbooks contain little reference to research results on relationships among the heart rate, hypertension and cardiovascular prognosis.

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.

The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) in Hypertension study: rationale, design, and methods. The LIFE Study Group.

The treatment of hypertension mainly with diuretics and beta blockers reduces cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, largely due to a decreased incidence of stroke, whereas the beneficial effects of antihypertensive therapy on the occurrence of coronary events have been less than expected from epidemiological studies. Furthermore, treated hypertensive patients still have a higher cardiovascular complication rate, compared with matched normotensives. This is particularly evident in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a major independent risk indicator for cardiovascular disease. In addition to elevating blood pressure, angiotensin II (A-II) exerts an important influence on cardiac structure and function, stimulating cell proliferation and growth. Thus, to further reduce morbidity and mortality when treating hypertensive patients, it may be important to effectively block the effects of A-II. This can be achieved directly at the A-II receptor level by losartan, the first of a new class of antihypertensive agents. It therefore seems pertinent to investigate whether selective A-II receptor blockade with losartan not only lowers blood pressure but also reduces LVH more effectively than current therapy, and thus improves prognosis. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) in Hypertension study is a double-blind, prospective, parallel group study designed to compare the effects of losartan with those of the beta-blocker atenolol on the reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in approximately 8,300 hypertensive patients (initial sitting diastolic blood pressure 95 to 115 mm Hg or systolic blood pressure 160 to 200 mm Hg) with electrocardiographically documented LVH. The study, which will continue for at least 4 years and until 1,040 patients experience one primary endpoint, has been designed with a statistical power that will detect a difference of at least 15% between groups in the incidence of combined cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. It is also the first prospective study with adequate power to link reversal of LVH to reduction in major cardiovascular events. The rationale of the study, which will involve more than 800 clinical centers in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, is discussed, and the major features of its design and general organization are described. On April 30, 1997, when inclusion was stopped, 9,218 patients had been randomized.