Explore the vast range of titles available.

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. 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). 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 0·58–0·98), 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. 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.

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. To determine whether the relation between albuminuria and cardiovascular risk can be used to predict cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients. Multicenter cohort study derived from a randomized, controlled trial. 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. Renal glomerular permeability evaluated by UACR. 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. 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.

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 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. To determine whether losartan reduces cardiovascular event rates in lower-risk hypertensive patients without clinically evident vascular disease. Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial. The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. 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. Patients were randomly assigned to once-daily double-blind treatment with losartan or atenolol. An end point committee ascertained end points (cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction). 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. 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.

OBJECTIVE--To investigate the effect of long term oral magnesium treatment on incidence of cardiac events among survivors of an acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN--Double blind, placebo controlled parallel study in which patients were randomised to treatment or placebo. SETTING--Two coronary care units and corresponding outpatient clinics. SUBJECTS--468 survivors of an acute myocardial infarction (289 men and 178 women) aged 31-92. INTERVENTIONS--One tablet of 15 mmol magnesium hydroxide or placebo daily for one year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Incidences of reinfarction, sudden death, and coronary artery bypass grafting in one year. RESULTS--There was no significant difference between treatment and placebo groups in the incidence of each of the three cardiac events, but when the events were combined and drop outs were excluded from calculations there was a significantly higher incidence of events in the treatment group (56/167 v 33/153; relative risk 1.55 (95% confidence interval 1.07 to 2.25); p = 0.02). When the timing of events was incorporated by means of a Kaplan-Meier plot the treatment group showed a significantly higher incidence of events whether drop outs were included or excluded (p < 0.025). CONCLUSION--Long term oral treatment with 15 mmol magnesium daily doses not reduce the incidence of cardiac events in survivors of an acute myocardial infarction and, indeed, seems to increase the risk of developing a cardiac event. Consequently, this treatment cannot be recommended as secondary prophylaxis for such patients.