Key result
Losartan-based therapy significantly reduced cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction compared to atenolol in women with hypertension and LVH (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68-0.98; P=0.031).
Why the study?
Does losartan-based therapy reduce the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction in women with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy compared to atenolol-based therapy?
RCT (n=4,963)
Does losartan-based therapy reduce the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction in women with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy compared to atenolol-based therapy?
Hazard Ratio: 0.82 (95% CI 0.68–0.98)
Absolute Event Rate: 18.2% vs 22.5%
p-value: p=0.031
In women with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy, losartan-based therapy significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction compared to atenolol-based therapy.
Supports losartan over atenolol for CV risk reduction in hypertensive women; extends LIFE trial findings to female participants.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Os et al. (2008) conducted an RCT in Hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (n=4,963). Losartan-based therapy vs. Atenolol-based therapy was evaluated on Composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98, p=0.031). Losartan-based therapy significantly reduced cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction compared to atenolol in women with hypertension and LVH (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68-0.98; P=0.031).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: