Search

Background Treatment of hypertensive patients with a losartan-based regimen was associated with greater regression of electrocardiographic (ECG) left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) than atenolol-based therapy in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) study, independent of blood pressure (BP) changes. However, whether concomitant hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) therapy in >70% of LIFE patients was associated with greater regression of LVH independent of BP changes and whether this effect differed between treatment arms has not been examined. Methods Changes in Cornell product and Sokolow–Lyon voltage LVH were assessed in 9,193 hypertensive patients randomly assigned to treatment with losartan or atenolol, with additional HCTZ therapy added as necessary to achieve target BP goal per study protocol. Results After controlling for baseline and change in systolic and diastolic pressure, age, sex, race, prior antihypertensive treatment, baseline and year-4 body mass index and baseline LVH by either Cornell product or Sokolow–Lyon voltage, at year-4 follow-up HCTZ therapy was associated with greater regression of Cornell product LVH (−244 ± 788 vs. −172 ± 771 mm·msec, P < 0.05) and Sokolow–Lyon voltage (−4.2 ± 6.7 vs. −3.0 ± 7.0 mm, P < 0.001) and this effect was significantly greater in patients on losartan (−341 ± 743 vs. −189 ± 775 mm·msec and −5.2 ± 6.6 vs. −3.3 ± 6.6 mm) than in patients on atenolol (−142 ± 822 vs. −158 ± 765 mm·msec and −3.1 ± 6.6 vs. −2.7 ± 7.4 mm; both P < 0.001 for interaction of HCTZ with losartan vs. atenolol therapy). Conclusions HCTZ use was associated with greater regression of ECG LVH and this effect was greater in patients on losartan- than atenolol-based therapy, independent of baseline severity of ECG LVH and hypertension and changes in BP.

Udgivelsesdato: 2010-Feb, 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.

s of Original Contributions - Presented at the American College of Cardiology

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.

Background— Onset of atrial fibrillation (AF) has been linked to changes in autonomic tone, with increasing heart rate (HR) immediately before AF onset in some patients suggesting a possible role of acute increases in sympathetic activity in AF onset. Although losartan therapy and decreasing ECG left ventricular hypertrophy are associated with decreased AF incidence, the relationship of HR changes over time to development of AF has not been examined. Methods and Results— HR was evaluated in 8828 hypertensive patients without AF by history or on baseline ECG in the Losartan Intervention for End Point Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) study. Patients were treated with losartan- or atenolol-based regimens and followed with serial ECGs annually which were used to determine HR and ECG left ventricular hypertrophy by Cornell product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage criteria. During mean follow-up of 4.7±1.1 years, new-onset AF occurred in 701 patients (7.9%). Patients with new AF had smaller decreases in HR to last in-treatment ECG or last ECG before AF (−2.7±13.5 versus −5.2±12.5 bpm), whether on losartan- (−0.4±13.5 versus −2.2±11.7 bpm) or atenolol-based treatment (−5.3±12.8 versus −8.3±12.6 bpm, all P<0.001). In univariate Cox analyses, higher HR on in-treatment ECGs was associated with an increased risk of new-onset AF, with a 15% greater risk of AF for every 10 bpm higher HR (95% CI 8% to 22%). In alternative analyses, persistence or development of a HR≥84 (upper quintile of baseline HR) was associated with a 46% greater risk of developing AF (95% CI 19% to 80%). After adjusting for treatment with losartan versus atenolol, baseline risk factors for AF, baseline and in-treatment systolic and diastolic pressure and the known predictive value of baseline and in-treatment ECG left ventricular hypertrophy for new AF, higher in-treatment HR remained strongly associated with new AF with a 19% higher risk for every 10 bpm higher HR (95% CI 10% to 28%) or a 61% increased rate of A