Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Population impact of losartan use on stroke in the European Union (EU): Projections from the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 18, pages 367–373 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

The Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study was designed to compare losartan- vs atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a population of 9193 hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). In LIFE, the losartan-based treatment further reduced the primary composite end point (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) by 13% (risk reduction (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77–0.98, P=0.021). The further reduction in stroke with losartan (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63–0.89, P=0.001) was the major contributing factor to the reduction in the primary end point. Our objective was to project the reduction in stroke observed with a losartan- vs an atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment regimen in the LIFE study to the European Union (EU) population. The number of stroke events averted was estimated by identifying the number of persons in the EU expected to meet the LIFE inclusion criteria, and multiplying this figure by the cumulative incidence risk difference in stroke from LIFE at 5.5 years. The age- and gender-specific prevalence of hypertension, electrocardiographically (ECG)-diagnosed LVH among those with hypertension (inclusion criteria), and heart failure among those with LVH and hypertension (exclusion criteria) were applied to the EU census estimates. We conservatively projected that an estimated 7.8 million individuals aged 55–80 years in the EU are affected by hypertension and ECG-diagnosed LVH. Use of a losartan-based antihypertensive treatment in this population is projected to prevent approximately 125 000 first strokes over a 5.5-year period. A population-wide prevention strategy of using losartan in patients with LVH and hypertension has the potential to have a major public health impact by reducing the morbidity and mortality of stroke in the EU.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Murray CJL, Lopez AD . Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 1997; 349: 1436–1442.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Murray CJL, Lopez AD . Mortality by cause for eight regions of the world: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 1997; 349: 1269–1276.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wolf PA, D'Agostino RB, Belanger AJ, Kannel WB . Probability of stroke: a risk profile from the Framingham study. Stroke 1991; 22: 312–318.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. American Heart Association. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2003 Update. American Heart Association: Dallas, TX.

  5. Evers SM, Engel GL, Ament AJ . Cost of stroke in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. Stroke 1997; 28: 1375–1381.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Isard PA, Forbes JF . The cost of stroke to the National Health service in Scotland. Cerebrovasc Dis 1992; 2: 47–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. van Exel J, Koopmanschap MA, Reimer WJM, van Wijngaarden JDH . Costs of stroke and stroke services: determinants of patient costs and a comparison of costs of regular care and care organised in stroke services. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2003; 26: 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Youman P, Wilson K, Harraf F, Kalra L . The economic burden of stroke in the United Kingdom. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21 (Suppl 1): 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Spieler JF, Lanoe JL, Amarenco P . Socioeconomic aspects of postacute care for patients with brain infarction in France. Cerebrovasc Dis 2000; 13: 132–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bergman L, van der Meulen JH, Limburg M, Habbema JD . Costs of medical care after first-ever stroke in The Netherlands. Stroke 1995; 26: 1830–1836.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Claesson L et al. Resource utilization and costs of stroke unit care integrated in a care continuum: a 1-year controlled, prospective, randomized study in elderly patients: the Goteborg 70+ Stroke Study. Stroke 2000; 31: 2569–2577.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Caro JJ, Huybrechts KF . Stroke treatment economic model (STEM): predicting long-term costs from functional status. Stroke 1999; 30: 2574–2579.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. International Database (IDB). US Census Bureau. Accessed from http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html.

  14. Dahlöf B et al. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) in Hypertension study: rationale, design, and methods. The LIFE Study Group. Am J Hypertens 1997; 10: 705–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dahlöf B et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002; 359: 995–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Coope J, Warrender TS . Randomised trial of treatment of hypertension in elderly patients in primary care. BMJ 1986; 293: 1145–1151.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Medical Research Council Working Party. MRC trial of treatment of mild hypertension: Principal results. BMJ 1985; 291: 97–104.

  18. Medical Research Council Working Party. Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. BMJ 1992; 304: 405–412.

  19. Dahlöf B et al. Morbidity and mortality in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients (STOP-Hypertension). Lancet 1991; 338: 1281–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Primatesta P, Brookes M, Poulter NR . Improved hypertension management and control: results from the health survey for England 1998. Hypertension 2001; 38: 827–832.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kastarinen MJ et al. Trends in blood pressure levels and control of hypertension in Finland from 1982 to 1997. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 1379–1387.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Marques-Vidal P et al. Sex differences in awareness and control of hypertension in France. J Hypertens 1997; 15: 1205–1210.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Thamm M . Blood pressure in Germany—current status and trends. Gesundheitswesen 1999; 61 Spec No: S90–S93.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Giampaoli S et al. Socioeconomic aspects and cardiovascular risk factors: experience at the Cardiovascular Epidemiologic Observatory. Ital Heart J 2001; 2 (3 Suppl): 294–302.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Banegas JR et al. Blood pressure in Spain: distribution, awareness, control, and benefits of a reduction in average pressure. Hypertension 1998; 32: 998–1002.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Stegmayr B et al. Stroke around the Baltic Sea: incidence, case fatality and population risk factors in Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Lithuania. Cerebrovasc Dis 2003; 6: 80–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. van Rossum CT et al. Prevalence, treatment, and control of hypertension by sociodemographic factors among the Dutch elderly. Hypertension 2000; 35: 814–821.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wolf-Maier K et al. Hypertension prevalence and blood pressure levels in 6 European countries, Canada, and the United States. JAMA 2003; 289: 2363–2369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Martinez MA et al. Prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with mild hypertension in primary care: impact of echocardiography on cardiovascular risk stratification. Am J Hypertens 2003; 16: 556–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Verdecchia P et al. Prognostic value of a new electrocardiographic method for diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy in essential hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31: 383–390.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). National Center for Health Statistics. Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. NHANES III Electrocardiography Data File (Series 11, No. 2A). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Hyattsville, MD, 1998.

  32. US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). National Center for Health Statistics. Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. NHANES III Household Adult Data (Series 11, No. 1A). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Hyattsville, MD, 1996.

  33. Kalbfleish JD, Prentice RL . The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data. Wiley: New York, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Devereux RB et al. Echocardiographic detection of pressure-overload left ventricular hypertrophy: effect of criteria and patient population. J Clin Hypertens 1987; 3: 66–78.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jennings G et al. Effects of exercise and other nonpharmacological measures on blood pressure and cardiac hypertrophy. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1991; 17 (Suppl 2): S70–S74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Liebson PR et al. Comparison of five antihypertensive monotherapies and placebo for change in left ventricular mass in patients receiving nutritional-hygienic therapy in the Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study (TOMHS). Circulation 1995; 91: 698–706.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Coca A et al. The impact of different echocardiographic diagnostic criteria on the prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy in essential hypertension: the VITAE study. Ventriculo Izquierdo Tension Arterial Espana. J Hypertens 1999; 17: 1471–1480.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hammond IW et al. The prevalence and correlates of echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy among employed patients with uncomplicated hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986; 7: 639–650.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tingleff J et al. Prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy in a hypertensive population. Eur Heart J 1996; 17: 143–149.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Laufer E, Jennings GL, Korner PI, Dewar E . Prevalence of cardiac structural and functional abnormalities in untreated primary hypertension. Hypertension 1989; 13: 151–162.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Richard L Cooper, MD for providing hypertension prevalence estimates.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Östra, Göteborg, Sweden

    B Dahlöf

  2. Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA

    T A Burke

  3. MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Haar, Germany

    K Krobot

  4. Merck Research Laboratories, Blue Bell, PA, USA

    G W Carides & J M Edelman

  5. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA

    R B Devereux

  6. Department of Neurology, University Essen, Germany

    H-C Diener

Authors
  1. B Dahlöf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T A Burke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K Krobot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G W Carides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J M Edelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R B Devereux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H-C Diener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T A Burke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dahlöf, B., Burke, T., Krobot, K. et al. Population impact of losartan use on stroke in the European Union (EU): Projections from the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. J Hum Hypertens 18, 367–373 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001710

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001710

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links