Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Randomised comparison of losartan vs. captopril on quality of life in elderly patients with symptomatic heart failure: The losartan heart failure ELITE quality of life substudy

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To measure health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) in elderly symptomatic heart failure patients following treatment with an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (losartan) vs. an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (captopril). Methods: Patients (age ≥65 years) were randomised to losartan, titrated to 50 mg once daily, or captopril, titrated to 50 mg three times daily, as tolerated. Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (LIhFE) questionnaires were administered at baseline, weeks 12 and 48. Composite hypothesis testing of change in HRQoL from baseline for completers, and withdrawal for unfavourable events (death, clinical/laboratory adverse experience) was used to account for differential dropout rates. Results: In 203 patients completing the substudy (week 48), significant and comparable improvements in HRQoL from baseline were observed for both treatment groups (p ≤ 0.001). Although there was a trend favouring losartan vs. captopril for the composite HRQoL endpoint (unadjusted p = 0.018, one-sided), this was not considered significant after adjusting for multiple testing. Significantly more captopril patients in the substudy subset withdrew for unfavourable reasons (19.6 vs. 10.9%, p = 0.038). Conclusions: Significant improvements in HRQoL were observed in elderly patients with symptomatic heart failure treated with losartan and captopril long-term. A trend favouring losartan in the composite measure of drug tolerability/quality of life was not significant, but losartan was generally better tolerated than captopril in that significantly fewer losartan patients discontinued therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cohn JN, Johnson G, Ziesche S, et al. A comparison of enalapril with hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate in the treatment of chronic congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 303–310.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Moye LA, et al. On behalf of the SAVE investigators. Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction: Results of the survival and ventric-ular enlargement trial. New Engl J Med 1992; 327: 669–677.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fonarow GC, Chelimsky-Fallick C, Warner Stevenson L, et al. Effect of direct vasodilation with hydralazine versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition with captopril on mortality in advanced heart failure: The Hy-C trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 19: 842–850.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pitt B, Chang P, Timmermans P. Angiotensin II receptor antagonists in heart failure: Rationale and design of the evaluation of losartan in the elderly (ELITE) trial. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 1995; 9: 693–700.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gavras I. Bradykinin-mediated effects of ACE inhibitors. Kidney Intl 1992; 42: 1020–1029.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Israili ZH, Hall WD. Cough and angioneurotic edema as-sociated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy: A review of the literature and pathophysiology. Ann Intl Med 1992; 117: 234–242.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chalmers D, Dombey SL, Lawson DH. Post-marketing surveillance of captopril (for hypertension): A preliminary report. Br J Clin Pharm 1987; 24: 343–349.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lacourciere Y, Brunner H, Irwin R, et al. and the losartan cough study group. Effects of modulators of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system on cough. J Hypertension 1994; 12: 1387–1393.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stafford RS, Saglam D, Blumenthal D. Low rates of an-giotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use in congestive heart failure (abstract). Circulation 1996; 94: 1–194.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Timmermans P, Wong PC, Chin AT, et al. Angiotensin II receptors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Pharm Rev 1993; 45: 205–251.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pitt B, Segal R, Martinez FA, et al. On behalf of the ELITE study investigators. Randomised trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart failure (evaluation of losartan in the elderly, ELITE). Lancet 1997; 349: 747–752.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pitt B, Poole-Wilson PA, Segal R. Randomized trial of losartan versus captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: The Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study-ELITE II. Lancet (in press).

  13. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter W, et al. The sickness impact profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Medical Care 1981; 19: 787–805.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rector TS, Cohn JN. Assessment of patient outcome with the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire: Reliability and validity during a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of pimobendan. Am Heart J 1992; 124: 1017–1025.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rector TS, Kubo SH, Cohn JN. Validity of the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire as a measure of therapeutic response to enalapril or placebo. Am J Cardiol 1993; 71: 1106–1107.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Diehr PD, Hedrick PS, Rothman M, et al. Including deaths when measuring health status over time. Medical Care 1995; 33(4): AS164–AS172.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shih WJ, Quan H. Testing for treatment di€erences with dropouts present in clinical trials – A composite approach. Stats in Med 1997; 16(11.15): 1225–1240.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hommel G. Multiple test procedure for arbitrary dependence structures. Metrika 1986; 33: 321–336.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Simes RJ. An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 1986; 73: 751–754.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hommel G. A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on a modified Bonferoni test. Biometrika 1988; 75: 383–386.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Leidy NK, Rentz AM, Zycynski TM. Evaluating health-related quality of life outcomes in patients with congestive heart failure. A review of recent randomised controlled trials. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15: 19–46.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wolfel EE. Effects of ACE inhibitor therapy on quality of life in patients with heart failure. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18: 1323–1334.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bulpitt CJ. Quality of life with ACE inhibitors in chronic heart failure. J Cardiovas Pharmacol 1996; 27(Suppl 2): S31–S35.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rector TS. Effect of ACE inhibitors on the quality of life of patients with heart failure. Coronary Artery Disease 1995; 6: 310–314.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Baligadoo SJ, Subratty H, Manraz M, et al. Effects of enoximone on quality of life. Int J Cardiol 1990; 28(Suppl 1): S29–S32.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cowley AJ, Skene AM. Treatment of severe heart failure: quantity or quality of life? A trial of enoximone. Br Heart J 1994; 72(3): 226–230.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Massie BM, Berk MR, Brozena SC, et al. Can further benefit be achieved by adding flosequinan to patients with congestive heart failure who remain symptomatic on diuretic, digoxin, and an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor? Results of the flosequinan-ACE inhibitor trial (FACET). Circulation 1993; 88(2): 492–501.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt G. Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials 1988; 10: 407–415.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Harrington DP. The randomized clinical trial. J Amer Statis Assoc 2000; 95: 312–315.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queens Medical Centre-University Hospital, Nottingham, UK

    A.J. Cowley

  2. Merck Research Laboratories, West Point, PA, USA

    B.L. Wiens, R. Segal, N.C. Santanello & E.J. Dasbach

  3. Barnes Jewish Hospital, Washington University Medical Centre, St Louis, MO, USA

    M.W. Rich

  4. Division of Cardiology, University Hospital, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    B. Pitt

Authors
  1. A.J. Cowley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B.L. Wiens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Segal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M.W. Rich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N.C. Santanello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E.J. Dasbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. B. Pitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cowley, A., Wiens, B., Segal, R. et al. Randomised comparison of losartan vs. captopril on quality of life in elderly patients with symptomatic heart failure: The losartan heart failure ELITE quality of life substudy. Qual Life Res 9, 377–383 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008948930206

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008948930206

Search

Navigation