Characteristics of 9194 patients with left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE study. Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension.

-Losartan was the first available orally administered selective antagonist of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor developed for the treatment of hypertension. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint (LIFE) Reduction in Hypertension Study is a double-blind, prospective, parallel group study designed to compare the effects of losartan with those of the beta-blocker atenolol on the reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Patients with essential hypertension, aged between 55 and 80 years, and ECG-documented left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) were included. Altogether, 9223 patients in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and the United States were randomized from June 1995 through April 1997, and 9194 remain after exclusion of a study center at which irregularities were discovered. This population of hypertensives (mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure, 174.4/97.8 mm Hg) with LVH comprises women (54.1%) and men, mostly retired from active work (mean age, 66.9 years), with a high prevalence of overweight (mean body mass index, 28.0 kg/m2), diabetes mellitus (12.3%), lipid disorders (18.0%), and symptoms or signs of coronary heart disease (15.1%). There were fewer current smokers (<17%) than in the general population, and approximately 7% were nonwhite. Almost 30% of participants had been untreated for at least 6 months when screened for the study. Only 1557 persons who entered the placebo run-in period of 14 days were excluded, predominantly because of sitting blood pressures above or below the predetermined range of 160-200/95-115 mm Hg and ECG-LVH criteria not met. By application of simple 12-lead ECG criteria for LVH (Cornell voltage QRS duration product formula plus Sokolow-Lyon voltage read by a core laboratory), hypertensive patients with LVH with an average 5-year coronary heart disease risk of 22.3% according to the Framingham score were identified. This population is now being treated (goal, <140/90 mm Hg) in adherence with the protocol for at least 4 years after final enrollment (ie, through April 2001) and until at least 1040 patients suffer myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

Lowering of blood pressure and predictors of response in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE study. Losartan Intervention For Endpoint.

The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint (LIFE) reduction in hypertension study is a double-blind, prospective, parallel-group study comparing the effects of losartan with those of atenolol on the reduction of cardiovascular complications in patients (n = 9,194) with essential hypertension and with electrocardiographically (ECG) documented left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Baseline blood pressure was 174.4/97.8 mm Hg (mean), age 66.9 years, body mass index 28.0 kg/m2; 54.1% were women and 12.5% had diabetes mellitus. This population will be treated until at least 1,040 have a primary endpoint. After five scheduled visits and 12 months of follow-up, blood pressure decreased by 23.9/12.8 mm Hg to 150.5/85.1 mm Hg (target < 140/90 mm Hg). The mandatory titration level of < or = 160/95 mm Hg was reached by 72.1% of the patients. At the 12-month visit, 22.7% of all patients were taking blinded study drug alone, 44.3% were taking blinded drug plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), and 17.7% were taking blinded drugs plus HCTZ and additional drugs. Controlling for all other variables, patients in the US received more medication and had 2.4 times the odds of achieving blood pressure control than patients in the rest of the study (P < .001). Previously untreated patients (n = 2,530) had a larger initial decrease in blood pressure compared with those previously treated. Diabetics (n = 1,148) needed more medication than nondiabetics to gain blood pressure control. Only 13.9% of the patients had discontinued blinded study drug and 1.4% missed the revisit at 12 months. These data demonstrate both the successful lowering of blood pressure during 12 months of follow-up in a large cohort of patients with hypertension and LVH on ECG, but also emphasize the need for two or more drugs to control high blood pressure in most of these patients. Being previously treated and having diabetes were associated with less blood pressure response, whereas living in the US indicated better blood pressure control. It has been possible to keep most of these patients with complicated hypertension taking blinded study drug for 12 months.

The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) in Hypertension study: rationale, design, and methods. The LIFE Study Group.

The treatment of hypertension mainly with diuretics and beta blockers reduces cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, largely due to a decreased incidence of stroke, whereas the beneficial effects of antihypertensive therapy on the occurrence of coronary events have been less than expected from epidemiological studies. Furthermore, treated hypertensive patients still have a higher cardiovascular complication rate, compared with matched normotensives. This is particularly evident in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a major independent risk indicator for cardiovascular disease. In addition to elevating blood pressure, angiotensin II (A-II) exerts an important influence on cardiac structure and function, stimulating cell proliferation and growth. Thus, to further reduce morbidity and mortality when treating hypertensive patients, it may be important to effectively block the effects of A-II. This can be achieved directly at the A-II receptor level by losartan, the first of a new class of antihypertensive agents. It therefore seems pertinent to investigate whether selective A-II receptor blockade with losartan not only lowers blood pressure but also reduces LVH more effectively than current therapy, and thus improves prognosis. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) in Hypertension study is a double-blind, prospective, parallel group study designed to compare the effects of losartan with those of the beta-blocker atenolol on the reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in approximately 8,300 hypertensive patients (initial sitting diastolic blood pressure 95 to 115 mm Hg or systolic blood pressure 160 to 200 mm Hg) with electrocardiographically documented LVH. The study, which will continue for at least 4 years and until 1,040 patients experience one primary endpoint, has been designed with a statistical power that will detect a difference of at least 15% between groups in the incidence of combined cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. It is also the first prospective study with adequate power to link reversal of LVH to reduction in major cardiovascular events. The rationale of the study, which will involve more than 800 clinical centers in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, is discussed, and the major features of its design and general organization are described. On April 30, 1997, when inclusion was stopped, 9,218 patients had been randomized.

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.

Simvastatin compared to fluvastatin in the reduction of serum lipids and apolipoproteins in patients with ischaemic heart disease and moderate hypercholesterolaemia.

OBJECTIVE: Inhibitors of HMG-CoA reductase are widely used for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia and have recently been shown in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S), to reduce coronary mortality as well as total mortality in CH D patients. Although a couple of studies have already established the efficacy ratio between simvastatin and fluvastatin, one of the newest members of this class, we considered it to be important to verify the comparative efficacy in patients with coronary artery disease in the same type of patients that were included in 4S particularly since the previous studies include rather few patients with CHD, 17-28% only. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three Scandinavian lipid clinics participated in this randomized double-blind study and enrolled a total of 113 hypercholesterolaemic patients with a profile similar to the 4S patients, i.e. either a history of typical angina pectoris lasting at least three months or a myocardial infarction at least six months before the study and with moderate hypercholesterolaemia, total serum cholesterol between 5.5 and 8.0 mmol/l. After a diet run-in period lasting at least 8 weeks, followed by a two week placebo period, patients received treatment with active drug for a 16 week period, with measurement of lipids using the same technique and laboratory as was used in 4S. Patients were randomly assigned to simvastatin 20 mg or fluvastatin 20 mg. If after 6 weeks of double-blind treatment, the 4S total cholesterol target of < or = 5.2 mmol/l total serum cholesterol had not been reached, the dose was doubled at the next visit, i.e. at week 10 based upon blinded titration information from the central lipid laboratory like in the 4S study. A final assessment of serum lipids and lipoproteins was made at week 16. The mean percent reductions in LDL-cholesterol from baseline were 37% and 40% in the simvastatin group compared to 19% and 26% in the fluvastatin group, at weeks 10 and 16, respectively (p < 0.001). In the simvastatin group 18 percent of the patients needed an increase in the dose to 40 mg compared to 63 percent in the fluvastatin group (p < 0.001). At the 20 mg dosage, simvastatin produced a lowering of LDL-cholesterol approximately twice that of fluvastatin 20 mg and resulted in 82% of patients achieving the cholesterol target levels as defined in the 4S study, compared to 19% for fluvastatin. All other recorded lipid variables showed differences which favoured simvastatin over fluvastatin at comparable doses including serum triglyceride reductions where serum triglycerides at week 6 were borderline significantly different between the two groups. Patient tolerability of the two drugs was similar. CONCLUSION: At the recommended doses in patient with angina or a prior MI and mild to moderate hypercholesterolaemia simvastatin is considerably more effective than fluvastatin in lowering serum total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol as well as other serum lipid risk factors. At an average titrated dose of 32 mg less than 50% of the fluvastatin patients reached the 4S cholesterol target of < 5.2 mmol/l compared to 89% of the simvastatin patients at an average dose of 23 mg daily and only 13% of the fluvastatin patients achieved an LDL-cholesterol reduction of at least 40% compared to 63% of the simvastatin patients.

Effects on renal function of treatment with cefoxitin alone or in combination with furosemide.

The glomerular filtration rate measured by 51Chrome-EDTA and serum half life of cefoxitin were followed in patients with preexisting moderate renal impairment. The patients were treated with cefoxitin for two to three weeks because of chronic serious infections. The dose used in patients with an initial clearance of more than 40 mg/ml was 1 g three times daily giving a mean peak concentration of 100 microgram/ml. Seven patients were treated with cefoxitin alone and twelve with cefoxitin and furosemide (80 mg daily orally). The glomerular filtration rate did not change significantly during treatment time. There were no signs of accumulation of cefoxitin as serum half life of the drug remained unchanged both in patients treated with and without furosemide concurrently.

Comparison of topical timolol vs betaxolol on cardiopulmonary exercise performance in healthy volunteers.

The effects of topical timolol vs betaxolol on cardiopulmonary exercise performance were studied in a randomised double-masked fashion in 12 healthy male volunteers. Cardiopulmonary parameters were evaluated at the anaerobic threshold and at peak exercise. Intraocular pressure was determined before and after treatment by applanation tonometry. No differences were found in aerobic or peak exercise capacity. Maximal heart rate was slightly lower (P less than 0.05) following treatment with timolol compared with betaxolol. However, a correspondingly higher oxygen pulse (oxygen uptake/heart rate) compensated for this reduction and resulted in no difference in peak performance. At physiological work levels, it was not possible to demonstrate any influence of topical, selective or non-selective, beta-adrenergic blockade on cardiopulmonary exercise performance in these healthy volunteers.

Lisinopril: dose-peak effect relationship in essential hypertension.

1. The dose-peak effect relationship of lisinopril was evaluated in a double-blind, parallel study in 83 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (supine diastolic blood pressure = 95-115 mm Hg). 2. After a 4 week placebo washout, patients were randomly assigned to one of four treatments: lisinopril 2.5, 10, 20 or 80 mg day-1 for 1 week. 3. Lisinopril 10 and 20 mg day-1 produced similar peak antihypertensive effects which were greater than that produced by 2.5 mg day-1, but less than that of 80 mg day-1. If the incidence of first-dose symptomatic hypotension is related to the peak effect, then an initial lisinopril dose of 20 mg should not pose any greater risk than a 10 mg dose. 4. The magnitude of antihypertensive response at 24 h postdrug appeared to be dose related across the 2.5 to 80 mg day-1 range.

The pharmacokinetics of enalapril in hospitalized patients with congestive heart failure.

The pharmacokinetics of the converting enzyme inhibitor, enalapril, were studied in an open, randomized, balanced crossover design in 12 hospitalized patients with stable, chronic congestive heart failure (CHF). Enalapril maleate is a prodrug requiring in vivo hepatic esterolysis to yield the active diacid inhibitor enalaprilat. CHF results in changes in regional blood flow that may affect the gastrointestinal absorption, hepatic hydrolysis and renal excretion of enalapril and enalaprilat. In order to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of enalapril in CHF, the following treatments were given: enalapril maleate 10 mg orally, enalapril maleate 5 mg intravenously and enalaprilat 5 mg intravenously. Each dose was followed by a 72 h period with frequent blood sampling and fractionated urine collection for the radioimmunoassay of enalaprilat, before and after sample hydrolysis. Mean absorption for the oral dose was 69%, hydrolysis 55%, bioavailability 38%, urinary recovery 77% and estimated first-pass effect 10%. The results were compared with available data in normal subjects. After oral administration of 10 mg enalapril maleate, the extent of absorption, the degree of hydrolysis and the bioavailability in CHF patients appear to be similar to those in normals with differences less than 10%. The rate of absorption and hydrolysis appear to be slightly slower in CHF. The serum concentrations of enalaprilat were consistently greater in CHF and maximal concentrations were reached at 6 h in CHF as compared to 4 h in normal subjects. We conclude that the presence of CHF does not appreciably alter the pharmacokinetic behaviour of enalapril. The observed differences may be associated with age as well as the disease state.

Acute hemodynamic and hormonal effects of lisinopril (MK-521) in congestive heart failure.

The acute hemodynamic and hormonal effects of the oral angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor lisinopril (MK-521) were assessed over a period of 96 hours in 12 patients with heart failure. This compound is the lysine analogue of enalaprilat (MK-422), is biologically active following absorption, and is cleared via the urine without any known metabolic transformation. Single doses of lisinopril, ranging from 1.25 mg to 10 mg, were administered on days 1 and 3, each followed by 48 hours of intensive hemodynamic observation. Across all doses, maximal reductions in mean arterial pressure (17.2%), mean pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (28%), and systemic vascular resistance (25.6%) were observed compared to baseline values. No significant changes in heart rate were recorded. Arterial blood was sampled at frequent intervals for angiotensin II, ACE activity, plasma renin activity, renin substrate, plasma aldosterone, and serum drug levels. Right atrial blood was sampled simultaneously for angiotensin I, thus permitting assessment of the degree of pulmonary conversion to angiotensin II. The results indicate potent inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system along with hemodynamic efficacy over a period exceeding 24 hours. Frequent clinical follow-up on long-term chronic therapy has revealed no adverse experience.