Article

Blood pressure reduction and antihypertensive medication use in the losartan intervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy.

Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY 10021, USA.
Current Medical Research and Opinion (Impact Factor: 2.37). 03/2007; 23(2):259-70. DOI: 10.1185/030079906X162854
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare blood pressure response and antihypertensive medication use visit-by-visit from baseline in patients receiving losartan-based or atenolol-based therapy in the LIFE study.
LIFE was a randomized, double-blind trial comparing losartan-based and atenolol-based treatment regimens on the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in 9193 patients aged 55-80 years with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. Systolic and diastolic, pulse, and mean arterial pressures, blood pressure responder rates, distribution of open-label antihypertensive agents utilized, and the proportion of patients on randomized treatment were determined for each group at each clinic visit over a follow-up period of at least 4 years.
Overall blood pressure reductions were comparable in the losartan-based and atenolol-based treatment groups. The mean reductions in sitting trough systolic and diastolic blood pressures from baseline to the end of follow-up (or last visit before a primary endpoint event) were 30.2/16.6 mmHg in the losartan group and 29.1/16.8 mmHg in the atenolol group. The time-averaged difference in overall mean arterial pressure was similar between groups. The proportion of patients on individual dose combinations varied visit by visit but was generally comparable between groups. During the entire study, 56% (2579/4605) of losartan-treated patients received at least one dose of the combination of losartan 100 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg and 51% of atenolol-treated patients received 100 mg of atenolol plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg at some time during the study.
Differences in blood pressure or distribution of add-on medications between treatment groups were not evident in the LIFE trial and, thus, cannot account for the observed outcome difference in the primary endpoint of risk reduction of the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke and MI favoring losartan.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
45 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:861-870. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) is a novel treatment strategy for patients with resistant arterial hypertension. Recently, the Symplicity trials demonstrated significant peripheral blood pressure (BP) reduction. The present study aimed at measuring central aortic pressures and arterial stiffness as better predictors for cardiovascular risk in patients undergoing RDN. RDN was performed in 21 patients (systolic peripheral BP ≥150 mm Hg) with an Ardian/Medtronic (Mountain View, CA) ablation system. Data were recorded with an Arteriograph. After 6 months, peripheral systolic BP was reduced by 6.1% (P<.05) while central systolic pressure was reduced by 7.0% (P<.05). Subgroup analysis showed that in responders, peripheral systolic BP was reduced by 16.1% (P<.01) while central systolic pressure was reduced by 18.3% (P<.01). Arterial stiffness improved significantly. Aortic augmentation index (AIx) improved by 9.5% (P<.05). In responders, AIx improved by 19.2% (P<.02). Pulse wave velocity (PWV) was high at baseline (10.8 m/s) and improved by 10.4% (P<.05). In responders, PWV improved by 13.7% (P<.05). Multivariate analysis showed that short-term effects on PWV were BP-related, whereas during follow-up, improvement of PWV becomes BP-unrelated. RDN improves peripheral and central blood pressure as well as arterial stiffness and, thus, may improve cardiovascular outcome.
    Journal of Clinical Hypertension 12/2012; 14(12):861-70. · 2.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To compare the effect of adding canrenone or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) to valsartan/amlodipine combination on urinary albumin excretion (UAE) in microalbuminuric type 2 diabetic hypertensives. Research design and methods: After a 2-week placebo period and after 4 weeks of valsartan 160 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg combination, 120 patients whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled (> 130/80 mmHg) were randomized to canrenone 25 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg in addition to the previous therapy for 24 weeks. After the first 6 weeks of triple therapy, canrenone or HCTZ doses were doubled in the patients whose BP was yet uncontrolled. At the end of each period (placebo, dual combination and triple combination therapy), clinic and ambulatory BP measurements were recorded and 24 h UAE was evaluated. Results: Both triple combinations produced greater clinical and ambulatory BP reduction than dual therapy, with no difference between the two groups. UAE was reduced by both regimens, but the decrease associated with canrenone add-on therapy was more pronounced. At week 24, UAE decreased by 45.3% in the canrenone group and by 20.3% in the HCTZ group (p < 0.01). Conclusions: These findings indicate that, despite similar BP-lowering effect, the addition of canrenone to valsartan/amlodipine combination was more effective in reducing UAE than HCTZ addition.
    Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 01/2014; · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Patients with hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) usually require two or more antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. METHODS: The efficacy/safety of olmesartan (OM) 40 mg, amlodipine besylate (AML) 10 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg versus the component dual-combinations (OM 40/AML 10 mg, OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg) was evaluated in participants with diabetes, CKD, or chronic CVD in the Triple Therapy with Olmesartan Medoxomil, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide in Hypertensive Patients Study (TRINITY). The primary efficacy end point was least squares (LS) mean reduction from baseline in seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) at week 12. Secondary end points included LS mean reduction in SeSBP and proportion of participants achieving BP goal (<130/80 mm Hg) at week 12 (double-blind randomized period), and LS mean reduction in SeBP and BP goal achievement at week 52/early termination (open-label period). RESULTS: At week 12, OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg resulted in significantly greater SeBP reductions in participants with diabetes (-37.9/22.0 mm Hg vs -28.0/17.6 mm Hg for OM 40/AML 10 mg, -26.4/14.7 mm Hg for OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and -27.6/14.8 mm Hg for AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg), CKD (-44.3/25.5 mm Hg vs -39.5/23.8 mm Hg for OM 40/AML 10 mg, -25.3/17.0 mm Hg for OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and -33.4/20.6 mm Hg for AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg), and chronic CVD (-37.8/20.6 mm Hg vs -31.7/18.2 mm Hg for OM 40/AML 10 mg, -30.9/17.1 mm Hg for OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and -27.5/16.1 mm Hg for AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg) (P<0.05 for all subgroups vs dual-component treatments). BP goal achievement was greater for participants receiving triple-combination treatment compared with the dual-combination treatments, and was achieved in 41.1%, 55.0%, and 38.9% of participants with diabetes, CKD, and chronic CVD on OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. At week 52, there was sustained BP lowering with the OM/AML/HCTZ regimen. Overall, the triple combination was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes, CKD, or chronic CVD, short-term (12 weeks) and long-term treatment with OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg was well tolerated, lowered BP more effectively, and enabled more participants to reach BP goal than the corresponding 2-component regimens.Trial Identification NumberNCT00649389.
    Cardiovascular Diabetology 10/2012; 11(1):134. · 4.21 Impact Factor