Effect of ACE insertion/deletion and 12 other polymorphisms on clinical outcomes and response to treatment in the LIFE study.

OBJECTIVE: This pharmacogenetics substudy from the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in Hypertension study in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) treated with the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan versus the beta-blocker atenolol for 4.8 years tested whether the insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene and 12 other previously well-characterized polymorphisms of hypertension susceptibility genes affected blood pressure reduction, heart rate reduction, cardiovascular events, and/or response to treatment. These polymorphisms were chosen because they could affect blood pressure control or the pharmacological action of losartan or atenolol. METHODS: We genotyped 3503 patients, 1774 on losartan and 1729 on atenolol. RESULTS: ACE and the 12 other genotypes did not affect the reduction in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, mean arterial pressure, or heart rate, or treatment differences between losartan and atenolol on these endpoints, as assessed by general linear models. Also, ACE and the 12 other genotypes did not affect risk of the primary composite endpoint or its components stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death, or treatment differences between losartan and atenolol on these endpoints, as assessed by Cox proportional hazards models including baseline Framingham risk score and LVH. CONCLUSION: ACE insertion/deletion and 12 other polymorphisms of hypertension susceptibility genes did not affect blood pressure reduction, heart rate reduction, or cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension and LVH, or treatment differences between losartan and atenolol on these endpoints. These results suggest that the observed effects of losartan versus atenolol in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension study do not depend on ACE and 12 other polymorphisms of hypertension susceptibility genes.

Predictors of cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed readily available patient characteristics, including albuminuria (not included in traditional cardiovascular risk scores), as predictors of cardiovascular events in hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and developed risk algorithms/scores for outcomes. METHODS: The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study compared effects of losartan-based versus atenolol-based therapy on cardiovascular events in 9193 patients with hypertension and LVH. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified baseline variables with significant impact on development of the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death, stroke and myocardial infarction) and its components. Multivariate analysis used a Cox regression model with stepwise selection process. Risk scores were developed from coefficients of risk factors from the multivariate analysis, validated internally using naïve and jack-knife procedures, checked for discrimination and calibration, and compared with Framingham coronary heart disease and other risk scores. RESULTS: LIFE risk scores showed increasing endpoint rates with increasing quintile (first to fifth quintile, composite endpoint 2.8-26.7%, cardiovascular death 0.5-14.4%, stroke 1.2-11.3%, myocardial infarction 1.4-8.1%) and were confirmed with a jack-knife approach that adjusts for potentially optimistic bias. The Framingham coronary heart disease and other risk scores overestimated risk in lower risk patients and underestimated risk in higher risk patients, except for myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: A number of patient characteristics predicted cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension and LVH. Risk scores developed from these patient characteristics, including albuminuria, strongly predicted outcomes and may improve risk assessment of patients with hypertension and LVH and planning of clinical trials.

Effects of losartan compared with atenolol on lipids in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study.

OBJECTIVE: Beta-blockers and angiotensin II receptor blockers have different effects on lipids. METHODS: We examined lipid levels in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study and their impact on the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. We measured total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol at baseline and annually during 4.8 years of losartan-based compared with atenolol-based treatment in 8611 patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. RESULTS: Patients randomized to losartan-based or atenolol-based treatment had similar baseline total (6.04 +/- 1.12 vs. 6.05 +/- 1.13 mmol/l, NS) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (1.50 +/- 0.44 vs. 1.49 +/- 0.44 mmol/l, NS). Total cholesterol decreased significantly but equally (-0.37 +/- 1.05 vs. -0.34 +/- 1.09 mmol/l, NS), whereas HDL cholesterol decreased less during the first 2 years in patients randomized to losartan compared with atenolol (-0.13 +/- 0.24 vs. -0.19 +/- 0.25 mmol/l) and remained higher each year (1.38, 1.37, 1.42, 1.47, and 1.48 mmol/l vs. 1.32, 1.30, 1.36, 1.40, and 1.42 mmol/l, all P < 0.001) independent of hydrochlorothiazide or statin treatment. In Cox regression analysis, baseline total cholesterol [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.08 (1.02-1.14) per mmol/l, P < 0.01], HDL cholesterol [HR = 0.56 (0.48-0.66) per mmol/l, P < 0.001], and treatment allocation [HR = 0.86 (0.76-0.98), P < 0.05] predicted composite endpoint independently. Using time-varying analyses, the predictive strength of HDL cholesterol was increased [HR = 0.36 (0.30-0.44) per mmol/l, P < 0.001], whereas that of total cholesterol [HR = 1.03 (0.97-1.09) per mmol/l, NS] and treatment allocation [HR = 0.91 (0.80-1.03), NS] were reduced. CONCLUSION: Losartan blunted the decrease in HDL cholesterol during antihypertensive treatment in the LIFE study. Higher intreatment HDL cholesterol was associated with fewer composite endpoints and may partly explain the better outcome of losartan-based treatment.

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.

ACE gene polymorphism and losartan treatment in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.

Losartan treatment reduced renal outcomes in proteinuric patients with type 2 diabetes in the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study. It is unknown whether an insertion (I)/deletion (D) polymorphism in the angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) gene predicts renal outcomes and death and influences the effect of losartan in these patients. Pharmacogenetic analyses were performed comparing losartan with placebo administered with conventional blood pressure-lowering therapy in 1435 (95%) of the 1513 RENAAL study patients. The primary endpoint was the composite of doubling of baseline serum creatinine concentration, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or death. Cox regression models were stratified on baseline proteinuria and included treatment, geographic region, ACE/ID genotype, and treatment x genotype interaction. Within the placebo group, subjects with the ID or DD genotype were more likely than those with the II genotype to reach the composite endpoint (by 17.5% and 38.1%, respectively, P = 0.029) or its individual components. Within the losartan group, genotype did not correlate with reaching the composite endpoint. Compared with placebo, however, losartan reduced the risk of reaching the composite endpoint by 5.8% (95% confidence interval, -23.3, 28.0), 17.6% (3.8, 29.4), and 27.9% (7.0, 44.1) among those with the II, ID, and DD genotypes, respectively. Similar trends were demonstrated for the individual endpoints. In conclusion, proteinuric type 2 diabetic patients with the D allele of the ACE gene have an unfavorable renal prognosis, which can be mitigated and even improved by losartan.

Effect of LDL cholesterol and treatment with losartan on end-stage renal disease in the RENAAL study.

Renal pathology and dyslipidemia commonly coexist. Treatments that lower albuminuria/proteinuria may lower lipids, but it is not known whether lipid lowering independent of lessening albuminuria/proteinuria slows progression of kidney disease. We examined the association between LDL cholesterol levels and treatment with losartan on end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Lipid levels and albuminuria measurements were obtained at baseline and at year 1 in a post hoc analysis from the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study, which compared the effects of losartan- versus placebo-based antihypertensive therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. LDL cholesterol lowering was associated with a lower risk of ESRD; however, this seemed to be largely an association with the reduction in albuminuria.

The left atrium, atrial fibrillation, and the risk of stroke in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy.

The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study provided extensive data on predisposing factors, consequences, and prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with hypertension and left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. Randomized losartan-based treatment was superior to atenolol-based treatment for reducing new-onset AF and complications, especially stroke, associated with new-onset or pre-existing AF. Potential mechanisms of AF prevention by angiotensin receptor blockade supported by LIFE results include greater reduction in left atrial size and LV hypertrophy. Differential effects of antihypertensive treatment on the left atrium and left ventricle may help prevent AF and reduce risk of stroke associated with hypertensive heart disease.

Effect of hemoglobin levels on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with isolated systolic hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (from the LIFE study).

The optimal hemoglobin level in patients with hypertension or heart failure is not yet defined. The aim of the present investigation was to examine the relation of hemoglobin with cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). In 1,326 patients with ISH in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) study, hemoglobin and cardiovascular outcomes were examined using Cox proportional hazard models. Baseline hemoglobin was negatively related to rate of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio 0.81 per 1 g/dl, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 0.98, p = 0.032) after adjusting for baseline Framingham risk score, LVH, treatment, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Hemoglobin decreased slightly during the study and the decrease was more pronounced in the losartan group (13.9 +/- 1.3 to 13.6 +/- 1.4 g/dl) than in the atenolol group (13.9 +/- 1.2 to 13.8 +/- 1.4 g/dl). Hemoglobin as a time-varying covariate was negatively associated with rate of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90, p <0.001) and stroke (hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99, p = 0.040) after adjusting for baseline Framingham risk score, LVH, treatment, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. In conclusion, in this high-risk population with ISH and LVH, lower hemoglobin at baseline was associated with higher probability of cardiovascular death, and decrease in hemoglobin over time was associated with higher probability of cardiovascular death or stroke; this effect was attenuated by treatment with losartan.

Fixed combination of losartan and hydrochlorothiazide and reduction of risk of stroke.

A fixed-dose combination of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) therapy may be a logical choice for antihypertensive treatment, including for initial therapy in patients with blood pressure elevation >20/10 mmHg above treatment target. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system-activating effect of hydrochlorothiazide augments the efficacy of blocking the angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor with losartan. Some adverse effects associated with hydrochlorothiazide, including increased risk for new-onset diabetes mellitus, may be offset by losartan. Losartan was frequently administered with hydrochlorothiazide in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study, in which there was a 25% risk reduction for stroke in the losartan-based compared with the atenolol-based treatment group. The efficacy, tolerability, and convenience of losartan/HCTZ combination therapy may increase patient compliance and lower risk for stroke, a devastating outcome in patients with hypertension.

Atenolol as a comparator in outcome trials in hypertension: a correct choice in the past, but not for the future?

OBJECTIVE: Twelve years after the design of the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study, which showed superiority of losartan- vs atenolol-based therapy for cardiovascular outcomes, we reviewed the literature for the effect of beta-blockers compared with initial placebo or no treatment on reduction of cardiovascular events to re-evaluate atenolol as the comparator in the LIFE study. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in September 2006 for randomized, controlled trials comparing beta-blockers with/without diuretics with placebo or no treatment in patients with hypertension and without recent cardiovascular morbidity. We calculated risk reductions for combined cardiovascular events, cardiovascular death, stroke, and coronary heart disease from groups of trials using atenolol first-line and all beta-blockers first-line. RESULTS: Five studies met the criteria. Significant risk reductions for cardiovascular events and stroke occurred in groups receiving treatment with atenolol or all beta-blockers, and for cardiovascular death in the all beta-blocker analysis. In meta-analysis of beta-blocker vs placebo or no treatment trials, risk reductions were 19% for combined cardiovascular events (95% CI 0.73-0.91, p<0.001), 15% for cardiovascular death (0.73-0.99, p = 0.037), 32% for stroke (0.57-0.82, p<0.001), and 10% for coronary heart disease (0.78-1.04, p = 0.146). CONCLUSIONS: Beta-blocker-based antihypertensive therapy significantly reduces cardiovascular risk in hypertension compared with placebo or no treatment. Atenolol was an appropriate comparator in the LIFE study. As the results of the LIFE study and other recent trials demonstrate superiority of newer agents over atenolol, this agent is not an appropriate reference drug for future trials of cardiovascular risk in hypertension.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a combination of once-daily losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg compared with losartan 100-mg monotherapy in the treatment of mild to severe essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Because patients with hypertension may require >1 antihypertensive agent to control blood pressure (BP), physicians often prescribe a fixed combination of antihypertensive medications. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of adding low-dose hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (HCTZ12.5) to high-dose losartan 100 mg (L100) in patients with hypertension whose BP was inadequately controlled with L100 monotherapy. METHODS: Enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, filter study were patients aged > or =18 years with a mean trough sitting diastolic BP (SiDBP) of 95 to 120 mm Hg. Patients were treated with L100 QD for 4 weeks. Patients who did not achieve adequate BP control were randomly assigned to receive L100/HCTZ12.5 or L100 QD for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in trough SiDBP from baseline in the 2 groups. Responders were defined as patients with a mean trough SiDBP of <90 mm Hg or patients who had a > or =10-mm Hg decrease in mean trough SiDBP. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were similar between treatment groups. The patients randomized to the double-blind treatment period were mostly white (65.1%) and male (57.5%), with a mean age of 53.8 years. The mean (SD) duration of hypertension at baseline was 9.7 (8.5) years. The proportion of patients previously treated with antihypertensive therapy was 76.7%. Of the 367 patients enrolled in the L100 filter period, 292 patients had BP inadequately controlled with L100 monotherapy and were randomized to receive L100 (n = 145) or L100/HCTZ12.5 (n = 147). At week 6 after randomization, mean trough SiDBP was significantly lower in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group (-8.3 vs -5.2, respectively; P < 0.001). The between-group difference was -3.0 mm Hg (95 % CI, -4.6 to -1.40; P < 0.001), and the proportion of responders was significantly greater in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group (63.0% vs 44.4%; P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) occurring in >2% of patients during the double-blind period was similar for both groups. AEs occurring in the L100 group and the L100/HCTZ12.5 group included respiratory tract infection (6.2% vs 3.4%, respectively), dizziness (2.1% vs 0.7%), and headache (0.7% vs 3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: After 6 weeks of therapy, L100/HCTZ12.5 was associated with greater antihypertensive efficacy than L100, as measured by the change in mean trough SiDBP The percentage of responders was significantly greater in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group.

Use of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers to prevent atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation, the most common cardiac arrhythmia in clinical practice, causes significant burden to patients and health care systems worldwide. Attention is being paid to prevention of atrial fibrillation using drugs that retard or prevent atrial fibrosis and arrhythmogenic remodeling, which lead to this arrhythmia. Agents that work through the renin-angiotensin-receptor system, the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, are showing promise in animal and human studies.

Does albuminuria predict cardiovascular outcomes on treatment with losartan versus atenolol in patients with diabetes, hypertension, and left ventricular hypertrophy? The LIFE study.

OBJECTIVE: Our current aims were to investigate whether 1) baseline urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) predicted cardiovascular outcomes, 2) changes in UACR differed between treatments, 3) benefits of losartan were related to its influence on UACR, and 4) reduction in albuminuria reduced cardiovascular events. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In 1,063 patients with diabetes, hypertension, and left ventricular hypertrophy, UACR was measured for a mean of 4.7 years. The primary composite end point included cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Cox models were run including and excluding baseline and time-varying UACR. RESULTS: Increasing baseline albuminuria related to increased risk for cardiovascular events. Reductions in UACR at years 1 and 2 were approximately 33% for losartan vs. 15% for atenolol (P < 0.001). Benefits of losartan seem to be most prominent in patients with the highest level of baseline UACR, although treatment by albuminuria interaction was only significant for total mortality. Approximately one-fifth of the superiority of losartan was explained by the greater reduction of albuminuria. Risk of the primary end point was related to the in-treatment UACR. CONCLUSIONS: Lowering of albuminuria in patients with hypertension and diabetes appears to be beneficial and should be the subject of additional study in future clinical trials.

Losartan: lessons learned from the RENAAL study.

Renal and cardiovascular diseases associated with Type 2 diabetes are increasing at rapid rates, and are significant burdens to patients and healthcare systems. The RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study was conducted from 1996 to 2001. This landmark clinical trial provided the opportunity to study renal and cardiovascular outcomes, as well as risk predictors, in a relatively large number of patients with Type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. The RENAAL study also provided information that will be valuable to those designing future clinical trials in this patient population. This review highlights key findings from the RENAAL study.

Risk scores for predicting outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy: the RENAAL study.

Diabetic nephropathy is the most important cause of ESRD. The aim of this study was to develop a risk score from risk predictors for ESRD, with and without death, in the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study and to compare ability of the ESRD risk score and its components to predict ESRD. The risk score was developed from coefficients of independent risk factors from multivariate analysis of baseline variables and equals (1.96 x log [urinary albumin:creatinine ratio]) - (0.78 serum albumin [g/dl]) + (1.28 x serum creatinine [mg/dl]) - (0.11 x hemoglobin [g/dl]). It was robust with respect to severity of nephropathy, gender, race, and treatment group. The risk score for ESRD or death was comparable. The four risk predictors for progression of kidney disease were independent of therapy. For combined treatment groups, the hazard ratio between the fourth and first quartiles of the ESRD risk score was 49.0, as compared with the corresponding hazard ratios for each component: 14.7 for urinary albumin:creatinine ratio, 9.2 for serum creatinine, 5.5 for hemoglobin, and 10.2 for serum albumin. The RENAAL risk scores for ESRD with or without death emphasize the importance of identification of level of albuminuria, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and hemoglobin to predict development of ESRD in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. Although albuminuria is a strong risk factor for ESRD, the contribution of serum albumin, serum creatinine, and hemoglobin level further enhances prediction of ESRD. Future trials with a similar patient population and outcomes measures should consider adjusting analyses for baseline risk factors.

Targeting the renin-angiotensin system for the reduction of cardiovascular outcomes in hypertension: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers.

Agents that counteract the negative impact of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) are effective antihypertensives and reduce the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. Contrary to common perception, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors do not share the apparent benefit of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in reducing risk of cardiovascular-disease outcomes, particularly stroke, in randomised clinical trials. RAAS agents, especially ARBs, are well tolerated. Use of ARBs alone or in combination with other classes of antihypertensive agents to lower blood pressure and/or medications to control other conditions (e.g., insulin sensitivity) reduces risk of cardiovascular disease outcomes and Type 2 diabetes with excellent tolerability. Selected issues related to use of RAAS agents as antihypertensive therapies (e.g., Type 2 diabetes, global risk management, multiple drug therapy and coronary heart disease) are addressed.

Hospitalizations for new heart failure among subjects with diabetes mellitus in the RENAAL and LIFE studies.

We sought to study the risk factors for heart failure (HF) and the relation between antihypertensive treatment with losartan and the first hospitalization for HF in patients with diabetes mellitus in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) and Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) studies. We evaluated 1,195 patients with hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, and diabetes from the LIFE study and 1,513 patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy from the RENAAL study. The comparative treatments were atenolol in the LIFE study and placebo in the RENAAL study. Patients with a history of HF were excluded from this analysis. Losartan significantly reduced the incidence of first hospitalizations for HF versus placebo in the RENAAL study (hazard ratio 0.74, p=0.037) and versus atenolol in the LIFE study (hazard ratio 0.57, p=0.019). Patients enrolled in the RENAAL study were at a higher risk of developing HF (hazard ratio for RENAAL vs LIFE diabetics 3.0, p<0.0001). The significant, independent baseline risk factors for the development of HF in the RENAAL study were urinary albumin/creatinine ratio, age, peripheral vascular disease, the Cornell product, body mass index, and previous angina; in the LIFE study they were the Cornell product, previous myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, baseline atrial fibrillation, alcohol use (inverse relation), and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. The beneficial effect of losartan on the reduction of risk for hospitalization for new HF was demonstrated in patients who were at high renal and/or high cardiovascular risk.

Kidney disease and cardiovascular disease: implications of dyslipidemia.

Cardiovascular complications are common inpatients with kidney disease. Regulating the lipid levels in these patients is important so that the risks of kidney and cardiovascular complications can be minimized. Lipid regulation decreases the incidence of coronary vascular events and other vascular complications in patients with kidney disease; however, whether lipid regulation slows progression of kidney disease is not yet known. Additional studies of the implications of dyslipidemia in patients with kidney disease are needed.

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 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.