Effects of losartan in women with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: results from the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension Study

Hypertension is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and outcomes in women. These posthoc analyses from the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study evaluated losartan- versus atenolol-based therapy on the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction and other end points in 4963 women. Fewer events occurred in women versus men. Women in the losartan group had significant reductions in the primary end point (215 [18.2 per 1000 patient-years] versus 261 [22.5 per 1000 patient-years]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.68 to 0.98]; P=0.031), stroke (109 versus 154; HR: 0.71 [95% CI: 0.55 to 0.90]; P=0.005), total mortality (HR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.63 to 0.95]; P=0.014), and new-onset diabetes (HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.59 to 0.94]; P=0.015) versus the atenolol group, with no between-treatment difference for myocardial infarction (HR: 1.02 [95% CI: 0.74 to 1.39]; P=0.925), cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.64 to 1.14]; P=0.282), or hospitalization for heart failure (HR: 0.94 [95% CI: 0.68 to 1.28]; P=0.677). More women in the losartan group required hospitalization for angina (HR: 1.70 [95% CI: 1.16 to 2.51]; P=0.007). Risk reductions for the primary composite end point, stroke, total mortality, and new-onset diabetes were significantly greater with losartan- versus atenolol-based treatment in women with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy in the LIFE study. The risk reductions for losartan, along with the tests for the interaction of treatment and gender, indicated that the treatment effect was consistent in men and women for all of the end points tested, with the exception of hospitalization for angina.     

Angiotensin II receptor blockade reduces new-onset atrial fibrillation and subsequent stroke compared to atenolol: the Losartan Intervention For End Point Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) study

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate whether different antihypertensive treatment regimens with similar blood pressure reduction have different effects on new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether angiotensin II receptor blockade is better than beta-blockade in preventing new-onset AF. METHODS: In the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study 9,193 hypertensive patients and patients with electrocardiogram-documented left ventricular hypertrophy were randomized to once-daily losartan- or atenolol-based antihypertensive therapy. Electrocardiograms were Minnesota coded centrally, and 8,851 patients without AF by electrocardiogram or history, who were thus at risk of developing AF, were followed for 4.8 +/- 1.0 years. RESULTS: New-onset AF occurred in 150 patients randomized to losartan versus 221 to atenolol (6.8 vs. 10.1 per 1,000 person-years; relative risk 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.83, p < 0.001) despite similar blood pressure reduction. Patients receiving losartan tended to stay in sinus rhythm longer (1,809 +/- 225 vs. 1,709 +/- 254 days from baseline, p = 0.057) than those receiving atenolol. Moreover, patients with new-onset AF had two-, three- and fivefold increased rates, respectively, of cardiovascular events, stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. There were fewer composite end points (n = 31 vs. 51, hazard ratio = 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94, p = 0.03) and strokes (n = 19 vs. 38, hazard ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86, p = 0.01) in patients who developed new-onset AF in the losartan compared to the atenolol treatment arm of the study. Furthermore, Cox regression analysis showed that losartan (21% risk reduction) and new-onset AF both independently predicted stroke even when adjusting for traditional risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel finding is that new-onset AF and associated stroke were significantly reduced by losartan- compared to atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment with similar blood pressure reduction.     

Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients with lower versus higher risk: a LIFE substudy

We hypothesized that losartan was superior to atenolol in reducing cardiovascular events in a lower-risk group (LRG) versus a higher-risk group (HRG) of patients in a Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) substudy, independently of blood pressure (BP) reduction. In a post hoc analysis, we designated 4282 patients as LRG on the basis of: (1) no previous cardiovascular disease (coronary, cerebral, peripheral vascular disease); (2) no diabetes; (3) no isolated systolic hypertension; and (4) inclusion of the lowest 3 quartiles of electrocardiographically documented left ventricular hypertrophy. The HRG consisted of 4911 remaining patients who did not qualify for the LRG. In the LRG, losartan was superior to atenolol in reducing stroke: hazard ratio (HR), 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.98); new-onset diabetes (HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.93]; and new-onset atrial fibrillation: HR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.92), all P<0.05 but not composite end points or cardiovascular mortality (both P=NS). In the HRG, losartan was superior to atenolol in reducing composite end points: HR, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94), P<0.01; cardiovascular mortality: HR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.95), P<0.05; stroke: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92), P<0.01; new-onset diabetes: HR, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.96), P<0.05; and new-onset atrial fibrillation: HR, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.58 to 88), P<0.05. Test for interaction of treatment with LRG versus HRG was not significant for composite end point, stroke, or atrial fibrillation, but was for cardiovascular mortality (P=0.018). Achieved systolic BP reduction favored losartan over atenolol by -1.8 mm Hg in LRG (P=NS) and -0.7 mm Hg (P=0.001) in HRG, but no significant differences occurred in diastolic or mean BP in either group. In conclusion, losartan compared with atenolol reduces the risk of stroke, new-onset diabetes, and new-onset atrial fibrillation in the LRG and the HRG.     

Cardiovascular risk reduction in hypertensive black patients with left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE study

OBJECTIVES: We report on a subanalysis of the effects of losartan and atenolol on cardiovascular events in black patients in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. BACKGROUND: The LIFE study compared losartan-based to atenolol-based therapy in 9,193 hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Overall, the risk of the primary composite end point (cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction) was reduced by 13% (p = 0.021) with losartan, with similar blood pressure (BP) reduction in both treatment groups. There was a suggestion of interaction between ethnic background and treatment (p = 0.057). METHODS: Exploratory analyses were performed that placed LIFE study patients into black (n = 533) and non-black (n = 8,660) categories, overall, and in the U.S. (African American [n = 523]; non-black [n = 1,184]). RESULTS: A significant interaction existed between the dichotomized groups (black/non-black) and treatment (p = 0.005); a test for qualitative interaction was also significant (p = 0.016). The hazard ratio (losartan relative to atenolol) for the primary end point favored atenolol in black patients (1.666 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.043 to 2.661]; p = 0.033) and favored losartan in non-blacks (0.829 [95% CI 0.733 to 0.938]; p = 0.003). In black patients, BP reduction was similar in both groups, and regression of electrocardiographic-LVH was greater with losartan. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the subanalysis are sufficient to generate the hypothesis that black patients with hypertension and LVH might not respond as favorably to losartan-based treatment as non-black patients with respect to cardiovascular outcomes, and do not support a recommendation for losartan as a first-line treatment for this purpose. The subanalysis is limited by the relatively small number of events.     

Pulse pressure and effects of losartan or atenolol in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy

In the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study, the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction was reduced by losartan versus atenolol in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to determine the influence of pulse pressure on outcome. Patients were divided into quartiles of baseline pulse pressure. Cox regression, including baseline Framingham risk score as a covariate, was used to compare risk in the quartiles. In the atenolol group, there were significantly higher risks in the highest versus lowest quartile for the composite end point 28% (confidence interval [CI], 2% to 62%; P=0.035), stroke 84% (CI, 32% to 157%; P<0.001), and total mortality 41% (CI, 7% to 84%; P=0.013). Risk for myocardial infarction was 44% higher (CI, -5% to 120%; P=0.089). The risks in the losartan group also increased with increasing quartile, but were lower than in the atenolol group, and differences between the highest and lowest quartiles were not significant: composite end point 12% (CI, -13% to 44%; P>0.2), stroke -5% (CI, -34% to 37%; P>0.2), myocardial infarction 30% (CI, -13% to 94%; P>0.2), and total mortality 32% (CI, -1% to 76%; P=0.062). In patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy in the LIFE study, there were significantly higher risks, adjusted for the Framingham risk score, for the primary composite end point, stroke, and total mortality in the highest versus lowest quartile of pulse pressure with atenolol-based treatment. The risks in the losartan group also increased with increasing pulse pressure quartile, but were lower than those in the atenolol group, and were not significant.     

The effect of losartan versus atenolol on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension taking aspirin: the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a subgroup analysis in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study to determine whether aspirin interacted with the properties of losartan, an angiotensin-II receptor antagonist. BACKGROUND: Negative interactions between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and aspirin have been reported. There are no data reported from clinical trials about possible interactions between angiotensin-II receptor antagonists and aspirin. METHODS: The LIFE study assigned 9,193 patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) to losartan- or atenolol-based therapy for a mean of 4.7 years, with 1,970 (21.4%) taking aspirin at baseline. The primary composite end point (CEP) included cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). The present cohort was stratified by aspirin use at baseline. RESULTS: Blood pressures were reduced similarly in the losartan with aspirin (n = 1,004) and atenolol with aspirin (n = 966) groups. The CEP was reduced by 32% (95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.86, p = 0.001) with losartan with aspirin compared to atenolol with aspirin, adjusted for Framingham risk score and LVH. The test for treatment versus aspirin interaction, excluding other covariates, was significant for the CEP (p = 0.016) and MI (p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistical interaction between treatment and aspirin in the LIFE study, with significantly greater reductions for the CEP and MI with losartan in patients using aspirin than in patients not using aspirin at baseline. Further studies are needed to clarify whether this represents a pharmacologic interaction or a selection by aspirin use of patients more likely to respond to losartan treatment.     

Population impact of losartan use on stroke in the European Union (EU): projections from the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study

The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study was designed to compare losartan- vs atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a population of 9193 hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). In LIFE, the losartan-based treatment further reduced the primary composite end point (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) by 13% (risk reduction (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.98, P=0.021). The further reduction in stroke with losartan (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89, P=0.001) was the major contributing factor to the reduction in the primary end point. Our objective was to project the reduction in stroke observed with a losartan- vs an atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment regimen in the LIFE study to the European Union (EU) population. The number of stroke events averted was estimated by identifying the number of persons in the EU expected to meet the LIFE inclusion criteria, and multiplying this figure by the cumulative incidence risk difference in stroke from LIFE at 5.5 years. The age- and gender-specific prevalence of hypertension, electrocardiographically (ECG)-diagnosed LVH among those with hypertension (inclusion criteria), and heart failure among those with LVH and hypertension (exclusion criteria) were applied to the EU census estimates. We conservatively projected that an estimated 7.8 million individuals aged 55-80 years in the EU are affected by hypertension and ECG-diagnosed LVH. Use of a losartan-based antihypertensive treatment in this population is projected to prevent approximately 125 000 first strokes over a 5.5-year period. A population-wide prevention strategy of using losartan in patients with LVH and hypertension has the potential to have a major public health impact by reducing the morbidity and mortality of stroke in the EU.     

Stroke reduction in hypertensive adults with cardiac hypertrophy randomized to losartan versus atenolol: the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study

The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study showed that treatment with the angiotensin II type-1 receptor antagonist losartan reduces overall stroke risk compared with conventional therapy with the beta-blocker atenolol. We conducted secondary analyses in LIFE to determine the extent to which the cerebrovascular benefits of losartan apply to different clinical subgroups and stroke subtypes and to assess the dependence of these benefits on baseline and time-varying covariates. Among 9193 hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic evidence of left ventricular hypertrophy, random allocation to losartan-based treatment lowered the risk of fatal (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.96; P=0.032) and atherothrombotic stroke (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P=0.001) compared with atenolol-based therapy. Although comparable risk reductions occurred for hemorrhagic and embolic stroke, these were not statistically significant. The number of neurological deficits per stroke was similar, but there were fewer strokes in the losartan group for nearly every level of stroke severity. Effects were consistent in all clinical subgroups except for those defined by age and ethnicity. The benefits of losartan on all strokes were independent of baseline and time-varying risk factors, including blood pressure. The number needed to treat for 5 years to prevent 1 stroke was 54 for the average participant, declining to 25, 24, and 9 for patients with cerebrovascular disease, isolated systolic hypertension, and atrial fibrillation, respectively. In conclusion, substantial cerebrovascular benefit could be realized with the institution of losartan-based therapy over conventional therapy among hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy across the spectrum of cardiovascular risk.     

Losartan versus atenolol on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure. A LIFE substudy

Objective. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study showed that losartan-based treatment reduced risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, stroke and myocardial infarction compared with atenolol-based treatment in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy with similar office blood pressure (BP) reduction. Our aim was to investigate the effect of losartan- and atenolol-based treatment on 24-h ambulatory BP and heart rate (HR) in LIFE. Methods: In 110 patients, 24-h ambulatory BP and heart rate were recorded at baseline and 1 year after randomization. Results: Ambulatory BP was comparably reduced throughout the 24-h period after 1 year of losartan- vs atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment. Office and ambulatory BP were comparably reduced in the follow-up period. Early morning surge in BP was similar between groups. Non-dipping status was more frequent in the losartan group (p = 0.01). From baseline to Year 1 the 24-h HR profile for the losartan group was unchanged, but, as expected, there was a significant decrease in daytime HR in the atenolol group, which was not as large during early night-time. Conclusion: There were no differences in 24-h BP burden and HR that could explain the difference in outcome in favor of losartan vs atenolol in the LIFE study.     

The effects of losartan compared to atenolol on stroke in patients with isolated systolic hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. The LIFE study

The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study reported that a losartan-based antihypertensive regimen reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction) more than therapy based on atenolol in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Patients aged 55-80 years with blood pressures 160-200/<90 mm Hg were followed for a mean of 4.7 years. Blood pressure was similarly reduced in the losartan (n=660) and atenolol (n=666) ISH groups. There were 88 (6.6%) patients who experienced a stroke, 18 of which were fatal. Of patients experiencing strokes, 72.7% had an ischemic stroke. ISH patients in LIFE compared to the non-ISH group had a higher incidence of any stroke and embolic stroke, and similar incidences of fatal, atherosclerotic, and hemorrhagic/other strokes. The incidence of any stroke (40% risk reduction [RR], p=0.02), fatal stroke (70% RR, p=0.035), and atherothrombotic stroke (45% RR, p=0.022) was significantly lower in losartan-treated compared to the atenolol-treated patients. The 36% RR for embolic strokes in the losartan group was not statistically significantly (p=0.33) different from the atenolol group. These data suggest that losartan-based treatment is more effective than an atenolol-based treatment for patients with ISH and a high risk for stroke.     

Cost effectiveness of losartan in patients with hypertension and LVH: an economic evaluation for Sweden of the LIFE trial

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the cost effectiveness of losartan compared with atenolol from a Swedish national health system perspective. DESIGN: The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE) was a double-masked, randomized trial of losartan versus atenolol in 9193 patients with essential hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) ascertained by electrocardiography. Losartan reduced the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke by 13% (P = 0.021) and reduced the risk of stroke by 25% (P = 0.001), despite a comparable degree of blood pressure control. METHODS: Life years gained was estimated by combining the absolute risk reduction in stroke with the life years gained by preventing stroke. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained was estimated by combining the absolute risk reduction in stroke with the QALYs gained by preventing stroke. QALYs were estimated by weighting life years by health-related quality of life (QoL), as measured with visual analogue scale (VAS) data collected in the trial. Net costs were defined as the total of study medication cost, stroke-related costs, and costs of increased survival. Costs are in 2003 Swedish prices. All costs and effects were discounted at a 3% annual rate. RESULTS: Prevention of a stroke resulted in a gain of 5.7 life years and 4.3 QALYs. As a consequence, losartan treatment resulted in a per patient increase of 0.092 life years [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.038, 0.146] and 0.069 QALYs (95% CI: 0.028, 0.109) as compared with atenolol treatment. Losartan reduced direct stroke-related cost per patient by 1141 euros due to a lower cumulative incidence of stroke for losartan at 5.5 years (4.9%) as compared with atenolol (6.5%) (95% CI of difference: 0.7, 2.5). The reduction in stroke-related cost offset 80% of the added cost of losartan drug therapy. After inclusion of study medication cost, net cost per patient was 289 euros higher for losartan than atenolol. The net cost per QALY gained for losartan was 4188 euros (37,813 SEK), which is well within common Swedish benchmark upper values (200-500,000 SEK) for accepted cost-effective interventions. CONCLUSION: Based on the results from the LIFE trial, treatment with losartan compared with atenolol, in hypertensive patients with LVH, is a cost-effective intervention.     

Effects of losartan and atenolol on left ventricular mass and neurohormonal profile in patients with essential hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of the angiotensin II antagonist, losartan, with those of atenolol on left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), blood pressure and neurohormone concentrations in hypertensive patients with LVH. DESIGN: A multinational, randomized, double-blind trial. SETTING: Hospital. PATIENTS: Hypertensive patients with an echocardiographically documented left ventricular mass index (LVMI) 120 g/m(2) (men) or 105 g/m(2) (women). INTERVENTIONS: Patients allocated randomly to groups received either losartan or atenolol 50 mg/day for 36 weeks, with possible titration to 100 mg/day, and addition of hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 or 25 mg/day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in LVMI and sitting systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures after 36 weeks of treatment (study powered for non-inferiority hypothesis). All echocardiographic data were read in a central laboratory by staff blinded to the treatments and sequence of echocardiographic tapes. RESULTS: The estimated treatment difference between the losartan and atenolol regimens (mean change from baseline at week 36) in LVMI was -2.5 g/m(2) [95% confidence interval (CI) -7.36 to 2.37 g/m(2) ] in favor of losartan, indicating that losartan was significantly non-inferior ( 0.001, non-inferiority limit 8 g/m(2) ) and numerically superior to atenolol in reducing LVMI. The losartan-based regimen significantly reduced LVMI after 36 weeks compared with baseline (-6.56 g/m(2) , 95% CI -10.24 to -2.88 g/m(2) , P<0.001), whereas the atenolol-based regimen had no significant effect (-3.71 g/m, 95% CI -7.75 to 0.32 g/m(2) , P= NS). In a subset of 82 patients, significant changes in serum concentrations of atrial natriuretic peptide, brain natriuretic peptide and immunoreactive amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide were recorded in losartan-treated ( 0.01) but not atenolol-treated patients. Losartan and atenolol significantly decreased SBP and DBP from baseline after 6, 12, 24 and 36 weeks. The changes from baseline in DBP were greater in the atenolol group at weeks 6 and 36 [difference -2.6 mmHg ( P= 0.016) at week 36]. However, both treatment regimens achieved similar SBP/DBP values at week 36 (141.1 +/- 12.8/86.8 +/- 8.2 mmHg for losartan and 141.4 +/- 17.2/85.0 +/- 10.1 mmHg for atenolol, respectively). Overall, losartan treatment was associated with significantly fewer drug-related clinical adverse events, compared with atenolol (10 and 22%, respectively, P= 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Both losartan- and atenolol-based regimens effectively decreased blood pressure. Losartan was non-inferior and numerically superior to atenolol in regression of LVH. The reduction in hypertrophy with losartan treatment was accompanied by reductions in circulating concentrations of cardiac natriuretic peptides. Losartan, by specifically blocking angiotensin II, may therefore have effects on the heart beyond those expected from the decrease in blood pressure alone. Losartan was better tolerated than atenolol.     

Losartan benefits over atenolol in non-smoking hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE study

We studied the impact of smoking in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study, which showed superiority of losartan over atenolol for reduction of composite risk of cardiovascular death, stroke and myocardial infarction in hypertensives with left ventricular hypertrophy. We compared hazard ratios in 4656 never-smokers, and 3033 previous and 1499 current smokers, adjusting for gender, age, alcohol intake, exercise and race. Composite endpoint rate was higher in previous (28/1000 years), as well as current (39/1000 years) smokers than in never-smokers (21/1000 years). Composite (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, p < 0.01) and stroke (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.47-0.80], p < 0.001) risks were lower with losartan than atenolol in never-smokers, but not significantly in previous smokers. Drug regimens did not differ in current smokers (composite hazard ratio 0.99, stroke hazard ratio 0.94). Smoking-treatment interactions were non-significant, but a borderline significant trend (p = 0.05) suggested decreasing benefit of losartan vs atenolol for stroke prevention from never- to previous to current smoking status. Smoking increased cardiovascular risk markedly in the LIFE study. The benefit of losartan vs atenolol is consistent with the overall conclusion of the LIFE study, although the treatment effect appeared largest in non-smokers.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Losartan Versus Atenolol in Treating Hypertension—An Analysis of the LIFE Study from a Swiss Perspective

Aims: To determine the economic benefit of losartan versus atenolol in patients with essential hypertension from the perspective of the Swiss healthcare system. Methods and results: The cost-effectiveness of losartan versus atenolol in the treatment of hypertension was analyzed by applying the results of the LIFE study to the Swiss healthcare system using a decision analysis framework. The cost-effectiveness shows the losartan cohort to provide an additional life expectancy of 0.05 years per patient compared to the atenolol cohort, over a mean follow-up period of 4.8 years. Losartan therapy in hypertensive patients produced net cost savings of CHF 24 per patient and per 4.8 years compared to atenolol from the perspective of the Swiss health care system. This result was robust after varying costs of medication, stroke, myocardial infarction and life expectancy. Conclusion: The use of a losartan-based regimen in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy in Switzerland is net cost-saving compared with a atenolol-based regimen.     

In-treatment resolution or absence of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy is associated with decreased incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus in hypertensive patients: the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) Study

Treatment of hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy with losartan-based therapy is associated with lower incidence of diabetes mellitus and greater regression of hypertrophy than atenolol-based therapy. However, whether in-treatment resolution or continued absence of electrocardiographic hypertrophy is independently associated with decreased incidence of diabetes is unclear. Electrocardiographic hypertrophy was evaluated over time in 7998 hypertensive patients without diabetes at baseline in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study who were treated with losartan- or atenolol-based regimens and followed with serial electrocardiograms and blood pressure determinations. Electrocardiographic hypertrophy was defined using gender-adjusted Cornell voltage-duration product criteria >2440 mm.ms. During mean follow-up of 4.6+/-1.2 years, diabetes developed in 562 patients (7.0%). In a Cox model adjusting for treatment assignment, in-treatment resolution or continued absence of Cornell product hypertrophy was associated with a 38% lower risk of new diabetes (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.78). After adjusting for the association of new diabetes with prior antihypertensive treatment, baseline glucose, and Framingham risk score, baseline and in-treatment systolic and diastolic pressure, HDL, uric acid, and body mass index, and the decreased incidence associated with losartan-based therapy, in-treatment continued absence, or resolution of Cornell product hypertrophy remained associated with a 26% lower risk of new diabetes (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.93). Thus, compared with presence of hypertrophy by Cornell product criteria during antihypertensive treatment, resolution or continued absence of Cornell product hypertrophy is associated with a lower incidence of diabetes, even after adjusting for the impact of treatment with losartan and other risk factors for diabetes.     

Does albuminuria predict cardiovascular outcome on treatment with losartan versus atenolol in hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy? A LIFE substudy

OBJECTIVES: To examine a possible relationship between baseline albuminuria and effect of losartan versus atenolol on cardiovascular (CV) events in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, the effect of losartan versus atenolol on albuminuria, and whether the benefits of losartan versus atenolol could be explained by influence of losartan on albuminuria. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of 4.8 years. SETTING: Out-patient setting. PATIENTS: A total of 8206 with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. INTERVENTIONS: Losartan or atenolol, supplemented with diuretics and/or calcium antagonists to reach blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The urine albumin/creatinine ratio, and the primary composite endpoint (CEP) of CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS: The blood pressure was reduced similarly on losartan (30.2/16.6 mmHg) versus atenolol (29.1/16.8 mmHg). The risk of a primary CEP increased linearly from the lowest to the highest decile of baseline albuminuria. The benefits of losartan versus atenolol for the primary CEP and for stroke tended to be more pronounced among patients above the median value for baseline albuminuria (urine albumin/creatinine ratio, 1.28 mg/mmol). The decrease in albuminuria was significantly greater with losartan versus atenolol throughout the study (a decrease from baseline to year 2 of 33% losartan versus 25% atenolol). One-fifth of the difference in favor of losartan on the primary CEP was explained by the greater reduction in albuminuria on losartan. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline albuminuria is a powerful risk factor for CV events. Baseline albuminuria did not identify the group of patients with greatest benefit on losartan versus atenolol in LIFE. Reduction in albuminuria explained one-fifth of the benefits of losartan versus atenolol.     

Electrocardiographic strain pattern and prediction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients

The ECG strain pattern of lateral ST depression and T-wave inversion is a marker for left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and adverse prognosis in population studies. However, whether ECG strain is an independent predictor of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in the setting of aggressive antihypertensive therapy is unclear. ECGs were examined at study baseline in 8854 hypertensive patients with ECG LVH who were treated in a blinded manner with atenolol- or losartan-based regimens. Strain was defined by the presence of a downsloping convex ST segment with an inverted asymmetrical T wave opposite to the QRS axis in leads V5 and/or V6 and was present in 971 patients (11.0%). The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study composite end point of CV death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke occurred in 1035 patients (11.7%). In Cox analyses adjusting only for treatment effect, ECG strain was a significant predictor of CV death (hazard ratio [HR] 2.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78 to 2.86), fatal/nonfatal myocardial infarction (HR 2.16, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.80), fatal/nonfatal stroke (HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.21), and the composite CV end point (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.33). After further adjusting for standard CV risk factors, baseline blood pressure, and severity of ECG LVH, ECG strain remained a significant predictor of CV mortality (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.00), myocardial infarction (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.06), and the composite CV end point (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.59). Thus, ECG strain is a marker of increased CV risk in hypertensive patients in the setting of aggressive blood pressure lowering, independent of baseline severity of ECG LVH.     

Losartan but not atenolol reduce carotid artery hypertrophy in essential hypertension. A LIFE substudy

BACKGROUND: We wanted to investigate whether treatment with losartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, induced regression of carotid artery hypertrophy as compared to the beta-receptor blocker, atenolol. METHODS: In 45 patients recruited for the LIFE Study with stage II-III hypertension and ECG left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, we measured blood pressure, intima-media thickness (IMT) and lumen in the common carotid arteries by ultrasound, and minimal forearm vascular resistance (MFVR) by plethysmography, after 2 weeks of placebo treatment and after 1, 2 and 3 years of anti-hypertensive treatment with either atenolol- or losartan-based regimens. We measured the same parameters in 26 normal subjects matched for age and gender. RESULTS: The patients had as compared to normotensive controls higher IMT (0.87 vs 0.76 mm, p = 0.001) and intima-media cross-sectional area (IMA) (19.7 vs 15.5 mm2, p<0.001). Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were reduced to the same degree in patients treated with losartan as compared to atenolol. However, IMA decreased significantly only in patients treated with losartan (19.2 vs 17.6 mm2, p = 0.001) and the average relative decrease in IMA during the 3 years of treatment was significantly higher in patients treated with losartan as compared to atenolol (-7.4 vs -2.0%, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with hypertension and LV hypertrophy had hypertrophy of the common carotid arteries. Losartan, but not atenolol, induced regression of this hypertrophy. Because carotid artery hypertrophy has been associated with strokes, our findings may explain the lower incidence of strokes in the LIFE study in patients treated with losartan as compared to atenolol.     

Alcohol consumption and cardiovascular risk in hypertensives with left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE study

The Losartan Intervention For End point reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study showed superiority of losartan over atenolol for reduction of composite risk of cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction in hypertensives with left ventricular hypertrophy. We compared hazard ratios (HR) in 4287 and 685 participants who reported intakes of 1-7 and >8 drinks/week at baseline, respectively, with those in 4216 abstainers, adjusting for gender, age, smoking, exercise, and race. Within categories, clinical baseline characteristics, numbers randomized to losartan and atenolol, and blood pressure (BP) lowering were similar on the drug regimens. Overall BP control (<140/90 mmHg) at end of follow-up was similar in the categories. Composite end point rate was lower with 1-7 (24/1000 years; HR 0.87, P<0.05) and >8 drinks/week (26/1000 years; HR 0.80, NS) than in abstainers (27/1000 years). Myocardial infarction risk was reduced in both drinking categories (HR 0.76, P<0.05 and HR 0.29, P<0.001, respectively), while stroke risk tended to increase with >8 drinks/week (HR 1.21, NS). Composite risk was significantly reduced with losartan compared to atenolol only in abstainers (HR 0.81 95% confidence interval, CI (0.68, 0.96), P<0.05), while benefits for stroke risk reduction were similar among participants consuming 1-7 drinks/week (HR 0.73, P<0.05) and abstainers (HR 0.72, P<0.01). Despite different treatment benefits, alcohol-treatment interactions were nonsignificant. In conclusion, moderate alcohol consumption does not change the marked stroke risk reduction with losartan compared to atenolol in high-risk hypertensives. Alcohol reduces the risk of myocardial infarction, while the risk of stroke tends to increase with high intake.     

Left ventricular geometry and survival in patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction

In hypertensive populations, left ventricular (LV) geometry, which is characterized by hypertrophy, predicts cardiovascular outcome. The left ventricle can also alter its shape by concentric remodeling (CR) in the absence of LV hypertrophy, a feature that is detected by echocardiography. This study assessed the prevalence and prognostic significance of various forms of LV geometry and changes in LV geometry over time in patients with normal LV systolic function. Retrospective analysis of a large clinical population (n = 35,602) that was referred for echocardiography was done, with all-cause mortality as the primary outcome. Abnormal LV geometry was identified in 46% of patients, with CR present in 35% (n = 12,362) and LV hypertrophy in 11% (n = 3,958). Patients with abnormal LV geometry were older and more obese compared with subjects with normal LV geometry. There was a strong relation between abnormal LV geometry and mortality, and patients with CR and LV hypertrophy exhibited considerably higher relative risk for all-cause mortality compared with subjects with normal LV geometry (relative risk [RR] 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88 to 2.18, p <0.0001; RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.40, p <0.0001, respectively). Subjects with CR who reverted to a normal geometric pattern had improved survival (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.97, p = 0.03) compared with those who progressed to LV hypertrophy (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.47, p = 0.05). In conclusion, CR, a form of cardiac adaptation, is frequently noted in patients with normal LV ejection fractions and confers a risk of death similar to that of LV hypertrophy. Normalization of CR is associated with better survival, whereas transition to LV hypertrophy increases mortality.