Clinical Trial Educator program - a novel approach to accelerate enrollment in a phase III International Acute Coronary Syndrome Trial.

BACKGROUND: The conduct of current cardiovascular outcome trials requires investigation of thousands of patients at hundreds of investigator sites. Such large trials are clinically and logistically highly demanding and often tend to finish with significant delays, consequently delaying patient access to new medicines. PURPOSE: To address this issue, we designed and implemented a novel approach - a Clinical Trial Educator (CTE) program - to accelerate enrollment in the Thrombin-Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction (TRA•CER) trial. This article analyzes the effect of this approach on the study milestones: patient recruitment, site start-up time, and recruitment rate. METHODS: Scientifically qualified and specifically trained CTEs regularly visited TRA•CER investigator sites in 18 European countries where they trained and educated investigators and site personnel to support them address recruitment challenges. Patient recruitment was assessed in absolute numbers and as recruitment rates, both in relation to CTE site visits. RESULTS: CTEs performed 2184 visits at 373 European TRA•CER sites (out of 921 global sites). Of sites visited by a CTE, significantly less remained without enrolling any patient than of sites not visited by a CTE (5.9% vs. 15.3%; p < 0.001). Sites visited within 30 days after initiation showed a significantly shortened median time to recruitment of the first patient (28 vs. 59 days with visits ≤30 or >30 days after initiation; p < 0.001). Mean patient recruitment rates were significantly higher at visited than at not-visited sites (1.13 vs. 0.89 patients per site per month, p < 0.001) and significantly increased after the first CTE site visit (from 0.70 to 1.17 patients per site per month; p < 0.001). Finally, there were fewer low-recruiting sites and more high-recruiting sites among the CTE-visited sites compared to the not-visited sites, and the mean recruitment rate at high-recruiting sites visited by CTEs was significantly higher than at high-recruiting sites without CTE visits (2.07 vs. 1.64 patients per site per month; p < 0.01). LIMITATIONS: The possibility for selection bias is inherent to this post hoc analysis of a nonrandomized data set. The European focus of the CTE program described here might add some geographical bias. Also, other activities such as investigator meetings conducted in parallel with CTE activities might have partly masked the results of our analysis. Finally, the analysis is limited to recruitment-related parameters, and the aspect of cost-effectiveness has not been quantitatively assessed. CONCLUSION: We found a significant positive association between CTE site visits and the assessed recruitment-related study milestones in the TRA•CER trial, and enrollment finished ahead of plan. We propose that a CTE program could efficiently accelerate enrollment in other clinical trials and therapeutic areas and could contribute to shortening patient access time to novel and potential lifesaving treatments in cardiovascular medicine and beyond.

Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients with a history of atrial fibrillation: The Losartan Intervention For End Point Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) study.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of antihypertensive treatment in hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic (ECG) left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and a history of atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment of hypertensive patients with AF to reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality remains unclear. METHODS: As part of the Losartan Intervention For End point reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study, 342 hypertensive patients with AF and LV hypertrophy were assigned to losartan- or atenolol-based therapy for 1,471 patient-years of follow-up. RESULTS: The primary composite end point (cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction) occurred in 36 patients in the losartan group versus 67 in the atenolol group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39 to 0.88, p = 0.009). Cardiovascular deaths occurred in 20 versus 38 patients in the losartan and atenolol groups, respectively (HR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99, p = 0.048). Stroke occurred in 18 versus 38 patients (HR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, p = 0.039), and myocardial infarction in 11 versus 8 patients (p = NS). Losartan-based treatment led to trends toward lower all-cause mortality (30 vs. 49, HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.06, p = 0.090) and fewer pacemaker implantations (5 vs. 15, p = 0.065), whereas hospitalization for heart failure took place in 15 versus 26 patients and sudden cardiac death in 9 versus 17, respectively (both p = NS). The benefit of losartan was greater in patients with AF than those with sinus rhythm for the primary composite end point (p = 0.019) and cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Losartan is more effective than atenolol-based therapy in reducing the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as well as stroke and cardiovascular death in hypertensive patients with ECG LV hypertrophy and AF.

Regression of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy during antihypertensive treatment and the prediction of major cardiovascular events.

CONTEXT: Electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a strong predictor of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. However, the predictive value of changes in the magnitude of electrocardiographic LVH criteria during antihypertensive therapy remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that lesser severity of electrocardiographic LVH during antihypertensive treatment is associated with decreased CV morbidity and mortality, independent of blood pressure levels and reduction and treatment modality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study conducted in 1995-2001 among 9193 men and women with hypertension aged 55 through 80 years (mean, 67 years), with electrocardiographic LVH by Cornell voltage-duration product or Sokolow-Lyon voltage criteria and enrolled in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) study. INTERVENTIONS: Losartan- or atenolol-based treatment regimens, with follow-up assessments for at least 4 (mean, 4.8 [SD, 0.9]) years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Composite end point of CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in relation to severity of electrocardiographic LVH determined at baseline and on subsequent electrocardiograms obtained at 1 or more annual revisits. RESULTS: Cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or stroke occurred in 1096 patients (11.9%). In Cox regression models controlling for treatment type, baseline Framingham risk score, baseline and in-treatment blood pressure, and severity of baseline electrocardiographic LVH by Cornell product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage, less-severe in-treatment LVH by Cornell product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage were associated with 14% and 17% lower rates, respectively, of the composite CV end point (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.90; P<.001 for every 1050-mm x ms [1-SD] decrease in Cornell product; and HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.88; P<.001 for every 10.5-mm [1-SD] decrease in Sokolow-Lyon voltage). In parallel analyses, lower Cornell product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage were each independently associated with lower risks of CV mortality (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.83; P<.001; and HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87; P<.001, respectively), MI (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; P=.01; and HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00; P = .04), and stroke (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96; P=.002; and HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.89; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Less-severe electrocardiographic LVH by Cornell product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage criteria during antihypertensive therapy is associated with lower likelihoods of CV morbidity and mortality, independent of blood pressure lowering and treatment modality in persons with essential hypertension. Antihypertensive therapy targeted at regression or prevention of electrocardiographic LVH may improve prognosis.

Prognostic significance of left ventricular mass change during treatment of hypertension.

CONTEXT: Increased baseline left ventricular (LV) mass predicts cardiovascular (CV) complications of hypertension, but the relation between lower LV mass and outcome during treatment for hypertension is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether reduction of LV mass during antihypertensive treatment modifies risk of major CV events independent of blood pressure change. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort substudy of the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) randomized clinical trial, conducted from 1995 to 2001. A total of 941 prospectively identified patients aged 55 to 80 years with essential hypertension and electrocardiographic LV hypertrophy had LV mass measured by echocardiography at enrollment in the LIFE trial and thereafter were followed up annually for a mean (SD) of 4.8 (1.0) years for CV events. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Composite end point of CV death, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, and fatal or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: The composite end point occurred in 104 patients (11%). The multivariable Cox regression model showed a strong association between lower in-treatment LV mass index and reduced rate of the composite CV end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78 per 1-SD (25.3) decrease in LV mass index; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.94; P = .009) over and above that predicted by reduction in blood pressure. There were parallel associations between lower in-treatment LV mass index and lower CV mortality (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82; P = .001), stroke (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96; P = .02), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.62-1.17, P = .33), and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.88, P = .002), independent of systolic blood pressure and assigned treatment. Results were confirmed in analyses adjusting for additional CV risk factors, electrocardiographic changes, or when only considering events after the first year of study treatment. CONCLUSION: In patients with essential hypertension and baseline electrocardiographic LV hypertrophy, lower LV mass during antihypertensive treatment is associated with lower rates of clinical end points, additional to effects of blood pressure lowering and treatment modality.

Albuminuria and cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown that albuminuria is associated with increased risk for fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events, independent of conventional risk factors. The partition values for urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) used to identify microalbuminuria have been based on studies that predicted risk in diabetic patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the relation between albuminuria and cardiovascular risk can be used to predict cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients. DESIGN: Multicenter cohort study derived from a randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS: 8206 patients with stage II or III hypertension randomly assigned to double-blind therapy with losartan or atenolol. Follow-up was 39 122 patient-years. MEASUREMENTS: Renal glomerular permeability evaluated by UACR. RESULTS: In nondiabetic hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, the risk for the composite cardiovascular end point increased continuously as albuminuria increased (P < 0.001 for trend). There was no specific threshold for increased risk. For every 10-fold increase in UACR, hazard ratios in nondiabetic patients increased as follows: composite end point, by 57% (95% CI, 40.6% to 75.0%); cardiovascular mortality, by 97.7% (CI, 66.5% to 235%); all-cause mortality, by 75.2% (CI, 54.0% to 99.4%); stroke, by 51.0% (CI, 28.8% to 76.9%); and myocardial infarction, by 45% (CI, 19.9% to 75.4%) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Values were similar in diabetic patients, although for myocardial infarction the trend was weaker and not significant. CONCLUSION: Increased UACR resulted in increasing risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. We found no thresholds or plateaus. Risk increases at much lower UACR values than has been reported among diabetic patients.

Effects of losartan or atenolol in hypertensive patients without clinically evident vascular disease: a substudy of the LIFE randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are reduced by treatment with the angiotensin II AT(1)-receptor antagonist losartan compared with conventional treatment with the beta-blocker atenolol in patients with hypertension and electrocardiogram-defined left ventricular hypertrophy, many of whom had known vascular disease. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether losartan reduces cardiovascular event rates in lower-risk hypertensive patients without clinically evident vascular disease. DESIGN: Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial. SETTING: The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. PATIENTS: 6886 men and women (57% women) 55 to 80 years of age (average, 66 years) with essential hypertension (sitting blood pressure, 160 to 200/95 to 115 mm Hg [average, 174/98 mm Hg]) and electrocardiogram-defined left ventricular hypertrophy who did not have clinically evident vascular disease. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to once-daily double-blind treatment with losartan or atenolol. MEASUREMENTS: An end point committee ascertained end points (cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction). RESULTS: Blood pressure was reduced similarly by losartan and atenolol. The primary composite end point occurred in 282 losartan-treated patients (17.5 per 1000 patient-years) and 355 atenolol-treated patients (21.8 per 1000 patient-years; relative risk, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.95]; P = 0.008). Cardiovascular death occurred in 103 losartan-treated patients and 132 atenolol-treated patients (relative risk, 0.80 [CI, 0.62 to 1.04]; P = 0.092), stroke (nonfatal and fatal) occurred in 125 losartan-treated patients and 193 atenolol-treated patients (relative risk, 0.66 [CI, 0.53 to 0.82]; P < 0.001), and myocardial infarction (nonfatal and fatal) occurred in 110 losartan-treated patients and 100 atenolol-treated patients (relative risk, 1.14 [CI, 0.87 to 1.49]; P > 0.2). New-onset diabetes occurred less often in patients treated with losartan (n = 173) than in patients treated with atenolol (n = 254) (relative risk, 0.69 [CI, 0.57 to 0.84]; P < 0.001). Benefits of losartan treatment were numerically smaller, but not significantly so, in patients with preexisting vascular disease. CONCLUSION: In hypertensive patients without clinically evident vascular disease, losartan was more effective than atenolol in preventing cardiovascular morbidity and death, predominantly stroke, independent of blood pressure reduction.

Regression of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy by losartan versus atenolol: The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) Study.

BACKGROUND: Electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and regression of ECG LVH may predict improved prognosis in hypertensive patients. However, uncertainty persists as to how best to regress ECG LVH. METHODS AND RESULTS: Regression of ECG LVH with losartan versus atenolol therapy was assessed in 9193 hypertensive patients with ECG LVH by Sokolow-Lyon voltage or Cornell voltage-duration product criteria enrolled in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) Study. Patients had ECGs at study baseline and after 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of blinded losartan-based or atenolol-based therapy. After 6 months' follow-up, adjusting for baseline ECG LVH levels, baseline and in-treatment systolic and diastolic pressures, and for diuretic therapy, losartan-based therapy was associated with greater regression of both Cornell product (adjusted means, -200 versus -69 mm. ms, P<0.001) and Sokolow-Lyon voltage (-2.5 versus -0.7 mm, P<0.001) than was atenolol-based therapy. Greater regression of ECG LVH persisted at each subsequent annual evaluation in the losartan-treated group, with between 140 and 164 mm. ms greater mean reductions in Cornell product and from 1.7 to 2.2 mm greater mean reductions in Sokolow-Lyon voltage (all P<0.001). The effect of losartan was consistent across subgroups defined by gender, age, ethnicity, and diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for baseline and in-treatment blood pressure and baseline severity of ECG LVH, losartan-based antihypertensive therapy resulted in greater regression of ECG LVH by Cornell voltage-duration product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage criteria than did atenolol-based therapy. These findings support the value of angiotensin receptor blockade with losartan for reversing ECG LVH.

Effects of losartan on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with isolated systolic hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: a Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction (LIFE) substudy.

CONTEXT: Drug intervention in placebo-controlled trials has been beneficial in isolated systolic hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that losartan improves outcome better than atenolol in patients with isolated systolic hypertension and electrocardiographically documented left ventricular hypertrophy (ECG-LVH). DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study conducted in 1995-2001. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1326 men and women aged 55 through 80 years (mean, 70 years) with systolic blood pressure of 160 to 200 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg (mean, 174/83 mm Hg) and ECG-LVH, recruited from 945 outpatient settings in the Nordic countries, the United Kingdom, and the United States. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive once-daily losartan (n = 660) or atenolol (n = 666) with hydrochlorothiazide as the second agent in both arms, for a mean of 4.7 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Composite end point of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Blood pressure was reduced by 28/9 and 28/9 mm Hg in the losartan and atenolol arms. The main outcome was reduced by 25% with losartan compared with atenolol, 25.1 vs 35.4 events per 1000 patient-years (relative risk [RR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.01; P =.06, adjusted for risk and degree of ECG-LVH; unadjusted RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.95; P =.02). Patients receiving losartan had reductions in the following without a difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction: cardiovascular mortality (8.7 vs 16.9 events per 1000 patient-years; RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.87; P =.01), nonfatal and fatal stroke (10.6 vs 18.9 events per 1000 patient-years; RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92; P =.02), new-onset diabetes (12.6 vs 20.1 events per 1000 patient-years; RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.97; P =.04), and total mortality (21.2 vs 30.2 events per 1000 patient-years; RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-1.00; P =.046). Losartan decreased ECG-LVH more than atenolol (P<.001) and was better tolerated. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that losartan is superior to atenolol for treatment of patients with isolated systolic hypertension and ECG-LVH.

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.

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.

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.