Low-dose reserpine/thiazide combination in first-line treatment of hypertension: efficacy and safety compared to an ACE inhibitor

The concept of initiating treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension with a low-dose combination of reserpine and the thiazide clopamide in comparison to monotherapy with an ACE inhibitor was investigated. A total of 127 adult outpatients with diastolic blood pressure between 100 and 114 mmHg were randomized into this double-blind, parallel group study. After a 2-week wash-out period and a subsequent 2-week placebo run-in period, they were allocated to once-daily treatment with 0.1 mg reserpine plus 5 mg clopamide (R/C), or 5 mg enalapril. If diastolic blood pressure was not normalized after 3 weeks of therapy (i.e. DBP < 90 mmHg), the dosage was doubled from week 4 to 6. The primary efficacy variables were the change from baseline in mean sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressure (DBP/SBP) after 3 weeks of therapy. Secondary variables included the change in DBP and SBP after 6 weeks of therapy, the BP normalization rates at 3 and 6 weeks and, concerning tolerability, the rates of adverse events after 6 weeks of therapy. An intent-to-treat analysis was performed. The reserpine/ clopamide and enalapril groups did not differ with regard to demographic and baseline characteristics (mean age 57 or 58 years, respectively; 63% or 56% males, respectively; mean SBP/DBP after the 2-week placebo period = 156 mmHg/104 mmHg in both groups). After 3 weeks of treatment with one capsule daily, mean SBP/DBP reduction from baseline (24 h after last medication intake) in the R/C combination group was -19.6/ -17.0 mmHg, in the enalapril group -6.1/ -9.5 mmHg (between-group comparison: 2p < 0.01 for both parameters). The normalization rates for DBP (< 90 mmHg) were 64.1% (R/C) and 28.6% (enalapril) (2p < 0.01). Adverse events that were considered possibly or definitely drug-related by the investigator were noted in 11 patients (17.2%) in the R/C group and in 9 patients (14.3%) in the enalapril group (NS). Two patients in the enalapril group discontinued the study prematurely due to adverse events (cough; skin eruption). In the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension, a low-dose combination of reserpine and clopamide once a day is considerably more effective than, and as tolerable as, 5-10 mg of enalapril once a day. These findings suggest that treatment with a combination of different antihypertensives with different modes of action in low doses is a rational alternative to conventional monotherapy in the first-line treatment of hypertension. Besides, the "old" reserpine-diuretic regimen also in these days appears to be a rational alternative to "modern" monotherapies.     

Double-blind comparison between nifedipine and amlodipine for the treatment of essential hypertension

Nifedipine is an effective compound for the treatment of hypertension. However, even as a tablet formulation it is relatively short acting requiring two or three times daily administration. Amlodipine is a long-acting calcium antagonist and effectively lowers BP in patients with essential hypertension. In the present study we compared the BP-lowering effect of nifedipine and amlodipine in patients with essential hypertension. Thirteen patients were studied. They had been on nifedipine tablets for at least four weeks and DBP had been consistently > 95 mmHg. After a further month run-in on nifedipine they entered a randomised double-blind crossover study of one month' treatment with either nifedipine tablet (20 mg twice daily) or amlodipine (5 mg once daily). BP was measured 12 and 2 hours after the last dose of nifedipine and 24 and 2 hours after the last dose of amlodipine. There was a significant peak/trough effect while on nifedipine tablets, the BP being significantly higher at 12 hours than at 2 hours after the last dose (155.2/90.9 +/- 4.6/1.7 vs. 136.1/84.8 +/- 4.3/1.7 mmHg; P < 0.001/P < 0.005). There was no overall difference in BP between nifedipine and amlodipine treatment when BPs were taken at the respective troughs (i.e. 12 hours and 24 hours). If anything, amlodipine tended to be slightly more effective at least on supine SBP (155.2/90.9 +/- 4.6/1.7 vs. 147.6/89.1 +2- 4.3/1.8 mmHg; P < 0.05, NS). In conclusion, amlodipine given once daily is at least as effective as nifedipine tablets given twice daily in patients with essential hypertension.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily versus twice-daily formulations of diltiazem in the treatment of systemic hypertension. The Canadian Multicenter Diltiazem-CD Hypertension Trial Group

The efficacy and safety of optimally titrated once-daily (CD) and twice-daily (SR) diltiazem were compared in 111 patients with mild to moderate systemic hypertension [seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or = 95 mmHg and < or = 114 mmHg] in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo run-in, parallel-group trial. Following a 4 week washout and placebo-controlled run-in period, patients were randomized to receive diltiazem CD 180 mg and matching placebo (n = 54), or diltiazem SR 90 mg bid (n = 57). Total daily doses were titrated from 180 mg to 360 mg to achieve a goal of seated DBP < 90 mmHg during a 6 week titration period. The patients continued to receive their optimal dose for a 6 week follow-up period. Ninety-six (96) patients (diltiazem CD: 47, diltiazem SR: 49) completed the study protocol, with 60% of the diltiazem CD and 55% of the diltiazem SR patients achieving the goal of seated DBP of < 90 mmHg (p = 0.685). Although significant decreases occurred in seated and standing measurements of diastolic and systolic BP and heart rate with treatment in both groups, there were no significant differences between treatment groups. Both medications were well tolerated, with a similar frequency of adverse effects [diltiazem CD: 24/54 (37%) patients; diltiazem SR: 24/57 (42.1%) patients] with the most frequently reported adverse effects being headache and edema.     

Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients after 1 year of treatment with rilmenidine: a double-blind, randomized, controlled (versus nifedipine) study

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of 1-year treatment with rilmenidine, an oxazoline compound that exerts its antihypertensive effects through binding to imidazoline receptors in the brainstem, on left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) secondary to essential, mild-to-moderate hypertension [supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP)95-115 mmHg]. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, randomized, controlled (versus slow-release nifedipine) trial. Adjustment of treatment took place every month (M) between inclusion (MO) and an evaluation after 6 months (M6), then during M9 and after 1 year (M12) to achieve supine DBP values < or = 90 mmHg. Patients were dropped from our study if they had DBP> 95mmHg during two consecutive visits or DBP>115 mmHg on one occasion. The daily dosage of rilmenidine was 1 mg, and could be increased to 2 mg/day. The daily dosage of slow-release nifedipine was started from the beginning at the maximum dosage of 40 mg/day, so that there was no true adjustment of treatment despite the allocation of patients to a different unit in the case of DBP> 95 mmHg. The primary criterion was the change in left ventricular mass index (LVMI, g/m2), assessed by echocardiography, between MO and M12 for patients who completed the trial. RESULTS: After a 1-month placebo run-in period, 76 patients were selected and 73 were included (35 treated with rilmenidine and 38 treated with nifedipine). Fifteen patients withdrew from the study and two completed the study with a major deviation from protocol, leaving 56 patients (24 treated with rilmenidine and 32 treated with nifedipine) for a per-protocol analysis. Baseline demographic characteristics and history of arterial hypertension for the rilmenidine and nifedipine groups were similar, for included patients and for those taken into account for the per-protocol analysis. Between MO and M12, DBP in members of the per-protocol population was adequately controlled for those in the rilmenidine group (102.7+/-4.6 versus 88.5+/-7.1 mmHg, respectively) and for those in the nifedipine group (102.7+/-5.1 versus 85.6+/-79 mmHg, respectively). During MO, LVMI of patients in the rilmenidine group (176.9+/-41.3 g/m2) was slightly higher than that of patients in the nifedipine group (172.6+/-35.1 g/m2). During M12, LVMI was observed to have decreased both for patients in the rilmenidine group (to 154.8+/-40.2 g/m2, a decrease of 22.1+/-23.3 g/m2, P< 0.001) and for those in the nifedipine group (to 145.6+/-36.4 g/m2, a decrease of 26.9+/-29.5 g/m2, P< 0.001) but the difference between these two groups was not significant (P= 0.5). CONCLUSION: One-year treatment with a daily dosage of 1 or 2 mg rilmenidine achieves a significant reduction of left ventricular mass, which is not statistically different than that occurring with a daily dosage of 40 mg of slow-release nifedipine.     

Indomethacin does not attenuate the hypotensive effect of trandolapril

This is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover study to determine if indomethacin attenuates the hypotensive effect of trandolapril. Twenty-three hypertensive patients (diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-115) requiring NSAID were recruited. Seventeen completed the study. Three week treatment periods: trandolapril 2 mg od and indomethacin 25 mg tds, trandolapril 2 mg and placebo, indomethacin and placebo, placebo and placebo. Clinic and ambulatory BP after 3 weeks of each treatment. Study had 85% power to detect a 5 mm Hg difference in BP (s.d. 7 mm Hg). End of treatment clinic BPs were: 152.9/98 mm Hg (95% CI 147.2, 158.6/95.8, 101.4) with placebo and placebo; 150.4/94.9 mm Hg (95% CI 144.7, 156.1/92.1, 97.7) with trandolapril and indomethacin; 148.2/96.5 mm Hg (95% CI 142.5, 153.9/93.7, 99.3) with trandolapril and placebo; and 156.6/97.4 mm Hg (95% CI 150.9, 162.3/94.6, 100.2) with indomethacin and placebo. There were no significant interactions between trandolapril and indomethacin for clinic systolic BP (SBP) (P = 0.79) or clinic DBP (P = 0.87). When trandolapril treatments (placebo or with indomethacin) were compared to treatments without trandolapril (placebo or indomethacin), trandolapril lowered clinic SBP by 5.4 mm Hg (P = 0.047) and DBP by 2.3 mm Hg (P = 0.08). Mean ambulatory BP was: 140.6/88.2 mm Hg (trandolapril and placebo); 142.8/89.7 mm Hg (trandolapril and indomethacin); 149.6/95.0 mm Hg, (indomethacin and placebo); 147.7/94.0 mm Hg (placebo and placebo). Compared with placebo, trandolapril and placebo lowered BP by 6.5/7.5 mm Hg (P < 0.001, SBP; P < 0.001, DBP). Compared with indomethacin, trandolapril and indomethacin lowered BP by 5.0/5.5 mm Hg (P = 0.001, SBP; P < 0.001, DBP). In the present study trandolapril 2 mg lowered clinic SBP and ambulatory BP, but indomethacin did not attenuate this. Indomethacin had no significant effect on either clinic or ambulatory BP. The antihypertensive effects of trandolapril in this study were modest. Patient selection factors may have contributed to the observed responses, but it seems unlikely from these data that a clinically important drug interaction has occurred.     

The relationship of blood lead and dietary calcium to blood pressure in the normative aging study

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated a positive relationship between elevated blood lead (BPb) and blood pressure (BP), but few have additionally examined the role of dietary calcium. METHODS: The cross-sectional relationship between BPb and BP and the possible protective influence of increased dietary calcium on that relationship was examined among 798 male participants in the Normative Aging Study (NAS), a cohort of older men with relatively low BPb levels. RESULTS: The age range of these subjects was 43-93 years (mean = 66.1, SD = 7.4 years) and blood lead concentrations ranged form 0.5 to 35 mcg/dl (median = 5.6 mcg/dl). For the cohort overall, neither ln blood lead nor dietary calcium were significantly correlated with BP. In multivariate linear regression analyses that adjusted for age, body mass index, dietary calcium intake (adjusted for total calorie intake), alcohol intake, sitting heart rate, kilocalories/week expended in exercise, haematocrit, and smoking status, a unit increase in ln BPb predicted an increase on 1.2 mmHg diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (95% CI : 0.11, 2.2; P = 0.03). Adjusted calcium intake of 800 mg/day predicted a decrease of 3.2 mmHg systolic blood pressure (SBP) (95% CI : -5.6, -0.24, P = 0.03). There was no evidence of an interaction between dietary calcium intake and blood lead on BP. When the analyses were restricted to those men <=74 years old, a unit increase in ln BPb predicted an increase of 1.6 mmHg DBP (n = 681; 95% CI : 0.42, 2.7; P = 0.007). However, when men on antihypertensive medication (AHM) were excluded from the analyses, ln BPb was not significantly associated with increased DBP nor was adjusted calcium significantly associated with SBP. CONCLUSIONS: The study did support the hypothesis that increased BPb was associated with increased DBP in a cohort of older men with low blood lead, but there was no evidence of interaction between BPb and dietary calcium on BP. However, the relationship between increased BPb and DBP did not hold when those on anti-hypertensive medications were excluded.     

Age-related differences in simultaneous interarm blood pressure measurements

Simultaneous noninvasive blood pressure measurement were recorded bilaterally in 40 young and 40 elderly subjects. Overall interarm blood pressure (BP) differences for the elderly and young groups were similar, the absolute interarm differences being for systolic blood pressure (SBP) elderly: 4.2 mmHg (95% CI 3.1-5.3 mmHg); young 3.3 mmHg(2.6-4.1 mmHg); diastolic blood pressure (DBP) elderly 3.6 mmHg(2.8-4.4 mmHg), young 2.7 mmHg(2.0-3.3 mmHg). However, the range of interarm BP differences was wide. Four (10%) of the elderly had an interarm SBP difference > 10 mmHg compared to one (3%) of the young group. Interarm DBP differences > 8 mmHg were found in three (8%) of the elderly and in none of the young group. Although age does not affect mean interarm BP differences, clinically important interarm BP differences exist in both young and elderly subjects. Blood pressure should be measured in both arms of all patients at initial assessment to avoid potential problems with misclassification of blood pressure status.     

Multiple injuries in peacetime and wartime estimate of severity of injury by the Injury Severity Score and Polytraumaschlüssel

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of valsartan, a new angiotensin II receptor antagonist, versus atenolol in the treatment of severe primary hypertension. A total of 103 adult out-patients were randomised to receive either valsartan 160 mg or atenolol 100 mg once daily for 6 weeks. If necessary, additional blood pressure (BP) control could be provided as add-on therapy. Both valsartan and atenolol decreased mean sitting diastolic BP (DBP) and mean sitting systolic BP (SBP): least squares mean change from baseline in DBP; valsartan, -20.0 mm Hg; atenolol, -20.4 mm Hg: in SBP; valsartan, -30.0 mm Hg; atenolol, -25.5 mm Hg. There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups. Add-on hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg was required by 97.2% of patients receiving atenolol and 83.6% of patients receiving valsartan; additional verapamil SR 240 mg was also required by 58.3% of patients receiving atenolol and 64.2% receiving valsartan. Valsartan was well tolerated, with a comparable incidence of treatment-related adverse experiences in both groups. In conclusion valsartan 160 mg is as well tolerated and effective as atenolol 100 mg in lowering BP in severely hypertensive patients.     

Comparative effects of felodipine ER, amlodipine and nifedipine GITS on 24 h blood pressure control and trough to peak ratios in mild to moderate ambulatory hypertension: a forced titration study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 24 h antihypertensive efficacy and duration of action of felodipine extended release (ER) in comparison with two other long acting dihydropyridine calcium antagonists, amlodipine and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS), in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension substantiated by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. DESIGN: Randomized, forced titration, parallel group study. Clinic BP was measured at every patient's visit, and 24 h ambulatory BP was monitored at baseline and at the end of each dose-titration period. SETTING: Single centre: hypertension research unit in Quebec City, Quebec. PATIENTS: There were 89 patients enrolled into the study. Eighty-four eligible patients were randomized, and 83 completed the study and were included in the final efficacy analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Following a two-to four-week washout period (baseline), patients were randomly allocated to receive felodipine ER 5 mg, amlodipine 5 mg or nifedipine GITS 30 mg for four weeks (low dose). All study patients had their daily dose doubled to felodipine ER 10 mg, amlodipine 10 mg or nifedipine GITS 60 mg for a further four weeks (high dose). MAIN RESULTS: Significant (P < 0.001) and similar changes from baseline in clinic BP were observed in all treatment groups for low and high doses. Ambulatory BP profiles showed comparable blood pressure reductions with felodipine ER and amlodipine, and a trend towards a lesser reduction with nifedipine GITS during 24 h, daytime and night-time periods. BP loads were similarly reduced with the three treatments. Trough to peak ratios (T:Ps) were calculated from 24 h ambulatory BP curves according to two different approaches: for diastolic and systolic BP, respectively, the global approach produced T:Ps of 0.49 and 0.50 with felodipine ER 5 mg; 0.50 and 0.34 with felodipine ER 10 mg; 0.70 and 0.60 with amlodipine 5 mg; 0.88 and 0.82 with amlodipine 10 mg; 0.65 and 0.55 with nifedipine GITS 30 mg; 0.68 and 0.53 with nifedipine GITS 60 mg. T:Ps in the individual approach were 0.07 and 0.10 with felodipine ER 5 mg; 0.23 and 0.31 with felodipine ER 10 mg; 0.22 and 0.31 with amlodipine 5 mg; 0.45 and 0.58 with amlodipine 10 mg; 0.27 and 0.31 with nifedipine GITS 30 mg; and 0.24 and 0.40 with nifedipine GITS 60 mg. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence in this study of a difference among felodipine ER, amlodipine and nifedipine GITS in lowering ambulatory or clinic BP. Treatment based on ambulatory BP may be preferable to treatment guided by T:Ps because ambulatory BP is firmly established as a predictor of cardiovascular risk. Furthermore, there is no consensus on how to calculate T:Ps, and different methods of calculation may give divergent results.     

A study of losartan, alone or with hydrochlorothiazide vs nifedipine GITS in elderly patients with diastolic hypertension

We conducted a randomised, double-blind, parallel design study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist, losartan, alone or with low-dose hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) to the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, nifedipine GITS (gastro-intestinal therapeutic system), in elderly patients (> or =65 years old) with a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between 95 and 115 mm Hg. After a placebo wash out period, 140 patients were randomly assigned to receive either losartan 50 mg or nifedipine GITS 30 mg. Patients were evaluated at 4-week intervals during a 12-week treatment period. Patients receiving losartan had HCTZ 12.5 mg added and increased to 25 mg to reduce DBP <90 mm Hg. Patients receiving nifedipine GITS had their dose increased to 60 mg and 90 mg to reduce DBP <90 mm Hg. Efficacy, tolerability and quality of life were assessed during the 12 weeks on each regimen. Patients treated with the losartan regimen (n = 73) had reductions in trough sitting DBP of -10, -13, and -13 mm Hg after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of therapy, respectively. Patients receiving the nifedipine GITS regimen (n = 67) had DBP reductions of -14, -15, and -15 mm Hg, respectively. There were no significant differences in the DBP response between the treatment groups except at week 4 (P < 0.05). Similar reductions in systolic BP (SBP) between the two treatment groups were observed at all time points. The percentages of patients in the two treatment groups reaching goal DBP (<90 mm Hg or DBP > or =90 mm Hg with a reduction from a baseline of > or =10 mm Hg) were comparable (81% on the losartan regimen and 90% on the nifedipine GITS regimen). There were significantly more adverse events reported in patients receiving nifedipine GITS when compared to the losartan regimen (54% vs 36%, P < 0.05). A patient-reported symptom inventory also showed that swollen ankles was bothersome in significantly more patients treated with the nifedipine GITS regimen when compared to the losartan regimen (24% vs 5%, P = 0.001). Thus, in elderly patients with diastolic hypertension, a regimen of losartan alone or with HCTZ has similar efficacy to a regimen of nifedipine GITS with greater tolerability and less symptom bother due to swollen ankles.     

A case report of two siblings with familial leukoencephalopathy in normotensive male adults with alopecia and lumbago

The aim of the study was to examine the hypotensive efficacy and tolerance of bisoprolol in elderly patients. Sixty patients (40 <65 years and 20 >65 years) with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between 95 and 109 mm Hg) were included in the study. After a 2-week run-in period on placebo, patients began bisoprolol therapy (5 mg/d) for 12 weeks. After 4 weeks the dose was increased to 10 mg/d in those with a DBP > or =95 mm Hg. Additionally, in 10 patients over 65 years old, 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was performed, after placebo and after bisoprolol (5 mg) administration. The hypotensive efficacy of bisoprolol in the elderly and younger patients was similar. Before and after treatment the mean difference of systolic BP (SBP) was 19.6 +/- 12.5 mm Hg and DBP 9.6 +/- 6.2 mm Hg in the younger patients and 16.1 +/- 13.6 mmHg and 9.5 +/- 6.0 mmHg in the elderly patients. Bisoprolol produced a similar reduction in heart rate (23.1% vs 17.1%) in the estimated groups. The tolerance of bisoprolol was good in both groups. There were no significant differences in adverse drug reactions between the groups.     

Low dosages of felodipine ER once daily as monotherapy in elderly hypertensive patients: effect on ambulatory blood pressure and quality of life

OBJECTIVE: To establish the efficacy of 24-h ambulatory and casual blood pressure (BP) reduction, and the tolerability of once daily felodipine extended release (ER) 2.5 mg and felodipine ER 5 mg as monotherapy. DESIGN: Randomised, double-blind placebo controlled 6 weeks parallel study. SETTING: From 15 general practices centres (with 19 GPs) in the region of the University of Maastricht, The Netherlands. SUBJECTS: A total of 129 subjects aged 50-80 years with primary hypertension were screened; 27 men and 61 women with a casual diastolic BP of 100-115 mm Hg and/or a systolic BP of less than 200 mm Hg entered the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Casual and 24-h ambulatory BP and a subjective symptom assessment (SSA) questionnaire after 6 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: After correlation for placebo response the mean casual systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) reduction was 10/5 mm Hg (NS) and 12/10 mm Hg (P < 0.05) for felodipine ER 2.5 and 5 mg, respectively. By using 24-h ambulatory BP measurements these reduction were 6/4 mm Hg (NS) and 13/8 mm Hg (P < 0.05), respectively. No significant difference for SBP and DBP was found during the night time between felodipine 2.5 and placebo (-1/0). Felodipine ER 5 mg lowered the BP load significantly during both daytime and night time but felodipine ER 2.5 mg only for DBP during the daytime. There was a significant difference for the number of responders between placebo (28%) vs felodipine ER 2.5 mg (55%) and ER 5.0 mg (59%). Both felodipine dosages and placebo were comparable in (a low) number of adverse events and results of the SSA. CONCLUSIONS: During daytime felodipine ER 2.5 mg and 5 mg are effective in BP lowering in elderly hypertensive patients. However, only felodipine ER mg is effective in reducing BP during night time (22.00-7.00). Only felodipine ER 5 mg has a significant reducing effect on BP load during day and night time. Both felodipine ER 2.5 and ER 5.0 have a significant effect on the responder rate. It appeared from this study that compared to placebo, and in contrast with felodipine ER 5 mg, the ER form of felodipine 2.5 mg has no BP lowering effect during night time in elderly patients. To assess the effectivity during night time of felodipine ER 2.5 mg in an individual patient it is recommendable to measure the BP at the end of the dose interval.     

Evaluation of the antihypertensive efficacy of lisinopril and captopril associated with hydrochlorothiazide by ambulatory measurement of arterial pressure

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, particularly in terms of the 24-hour cover, and the safety of lisinopril 20 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg 5L/HCTZ) and captopril 50 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (C/HCTZ) in patients with essential HT requiring two-agent therapy. Twenty patients with a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between 95 and 120 mmHg after 2 weeks of placebo were randomised to receive, under double-blind conditions, either L/HCTZ or C/HCTZ as a single daily dose for 4 weeks. Clinical examination, laboratory tests and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) were performed at the end of the placebo and active treatment periods. L/HCTZ and C/HCTZ significantly lowered SBP and DBP on occasional recordings and on ABPM. The mean fall in blood pressure on ABPM (SBP, DBP, mean of 24-hour recording, diurnal and nocturnal) at 4 weeks was greater with L/HCTZ than with C/HCTZ. Both treatments were effective for 24 hours and did not alter the circadian cycle. The clinical and laboratory safety was good. The blood pressure figures obtained by ABPM were lower than on occasional recordings, emphasising the value of this technique in the evaluation of a patient's poor response to antihypertensive treatment.     

Reflex sympathetic function in cortisol-induced hypertension in humans

Nine healthy male subjects underwent measurement of reflex sympathetic function, pressor responsiveness and baroreflex sensitivity to phenylephrine (PE) and glyceryltrinitrate (GTN) before (C1) and following six days of treatment (E6) with cortisol (F), 200 mg/day. Seven subjects had washout studies (W) performed at least two weeks following the end of treatment. The BP responses to head tilt, isometric exercise and mental arithmetic were unaltered by F, however, there was a significant diminution of the diastolic BP response to cold pressor stimulus (delta DBP: 19 +/- 3 vs 25 +/- 5 vs 27 +/- 5 mmHg; E6 vs C1 vs W, p < 0.05 C1 vs E6 and W). Baroreflex sensitivity to PE was increased (28 +/- 3 vs 19 +/- 2 ms/mmHg, E6 vs C1, p = 0.03). These data demonstrate that increased BP during F treatment is not attributable to increased SNS activity, and suggest that SNS activity may be decreased by F.     

Treatment with beta-blockers in patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressive treatment with cyclosporin A (CsA) improves the survival of renal allografts, but is associated with renal vasoconstriction and hypertension. Previous reports suggest that the calcium-channel blockers nifedipine and amlodipine may improve graft function in CsA-treated patients. We have compared the effects of amlodipine (5-10 mg once daily) and nifedipine retard (10-40 mg twice daily) on renal function and blood pressure in renal transplant recipients treated with CsA. METHODS: This was a multicentre, two-way, crossover study in 27 evaluable hypertensive patients with renal insufficiency following renal transplantation, who were maintained on a stable dose of CsA. Patients received either amlodipine (5-10 mg once daily) or nifedipine retard (10-40 mg twice daily) for 8 weeks, and were then crossed over to the other treatment for a further 8 weeks. RESULTS: Trends were seen during amlodipine treatment towards larger improvements, in serum creatinine (by 8% of baseline on amlodipine vs 4% on nifedipine), lithium clearance (13% vs 2%), and glomerular filtration rate 11% vs 7%). Effective renal plasma flow was increased by 11% of baseline on nifedipine vs 9% on amlodipine. There were no significant differences between treatments. Amlodipine and nifedipine lowered systolic blood pressure to a similar extent (21 mmHg vs 15 mmHg respectively, P=0.25), but amlodipine was more effective than nifedipine in lowering diastolic blood pressure (13 mmHg vs 8 mmHg, P=0.006). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Once-daily amlodipine is at least as effective as twice-daily nifedipine retard in controlling blood pressure and does not adversely affect graft function in hypertensive renal allograft recipients.     

Code Stroke: rapid transport, triage and treatment using rt-PA therapy. The NINDS rt-PA Stroke Study Group

In view of the concern regarding the potential risks and benefits of sodium restriction, the effect on biochemical and orthostatic responses from a moderate reduction in sodium intake in elderly persons that is sufficient to lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) was examined. Seventeen hypertensive subjects aged 65-79 years entered a double-blind randomized placebo controlled cross-over trial of a low sodium diet plus placebo tablets vs a low sodium diet plus sodium tablets (80 mmols/day) each for 5 weeks. At the end of high and low sodium periods, two 24-h urine collections and venous blood samples were undertaken and supine and standing BPs were recorded. On the low compared to the high sodium phase (urinary sodium excretion 95 +/- 36 vs 174 +/- 40 mmols/24-h, respectively), clinic supine SBP fell by 8 mm Hg (95% CI: 1-15 mm Hg, P< 0.05) and diastolic BP (DBP) by 1 mm Hg (CI: -3 to 5 mm Hg); there was no change in total LDL- and HDL-cholesterol and triglyceride levels, serum calcium, phosphate, parathyroid hormone, glucose, creatinine clearance or urinary albumin excretion rate. Serum urate was significantly higher during the low compared to high sodium intake (304 +/- 56 vs 277 +/- 44 micromols/l). Orthostatic BP responses during the high and low sodium intakes were unchanged. In summary, after 5 weeks of moderate sodium restriction no adverse effects other than an increase in serum urate was seen in elderly hypertensive persons.     

Effects of amlodipine and nifedipine retard on autonomic nerve activity in hypertensive patients

1. The effects of 1,4-dihydropyridine calcium antagonists with different biological half-lives, amlodipine and nifedipine retard on 24 h blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR) and autonomic nerve activity in patients with essential hypertension were compared. 2. Twenty patients (six men and 14 women; mean (+/- SEM) age 63 +/- 2 years) with essential hypertension were enrolled in the present study. Their ambulatory BP and electrocardiograms were monitored for 24 h at intervals of 30 min with a portable recorder after a 4 week drug-free period, after a 4 week treatment period with amlodipine (2.5 or 5 mg once daily) and after a 4 week treatment period with nifedipine retard (10 or 20 mg twice daily). The order of the three periods was randomized. Autonomic nerve activity was evaluated by power spectral analysis of HR variability, using the high frequency (HF) component as an index of parasympathetic activity and the ratio of the low frequency (LF) to the HF component as an index of sympathovagal balance. 3. Amlodipine and nifedipine retard significantly lowered the 24 h BP to a similar extent (amlodipine: -12.7 +/- 2.6/-5.6 +/- 1.4 mmHg, P < 0.01/P < 0.01; nifedipine retard: -15.1 +/- 2.1/-6.9 +/- 1.5 mmHg, P < 0.01/P < 0.01). Amlodipine did not change the 24 h average HR, while nifedipine retard significantly increased it (+3.3 +/- 1.2 b.p.m., P < 0.05). Amlodipine also did not change the HF component or the ratio of the LF to the HF component. However, nifedipine retard significantly decreased the HF component (P < 0.01) and increased the ratio of the LF to the HF component (P < 0.05). 4. These results suggest that nifedipine retard caused a decrease in parasympathetic activity and an increase in sympathetic activity with reflex tachycardia in these patients with essential hypertension, while amlodipine did not produce such effects on the autonomic nervous system.     

Efficacy and safety of enalapril versus extended-release nifedipine for the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension: a multicenter 22-week study. Multicenter Cooperative Study Group

The antihypertensive effects and tolerability of single daily doses of enalapril and extended-release nifedipine (nifedipine-ER) were compared in an open-label, randomized, parallel-group, 22-week treatment study involving 230 men and women (mean age, 55 years). Following a 3-week washout period, mean +/- SD blood pressure levels were 153 +/- 17/99 +/- 4 mmHg in the enalapril group (n = 117) and 157 +/- 17/100 +/- 5 mmHg in the nifedipine-ER group (n = 113). Beginning at 5 mg once daily for enalapril and 30 mg once daily for nifedipine-ER, the dosage was titrated every 4 weeks for 16 weeks, up to a maximum of 40 mg for enalapril and 120 mg for nifedipine-ER. The treatment goal (satisfactory response) was to lower trough sitting diastolic blood pressure to < 90 mmHg or by at least 10 mmHg to a level of < 100 mmHg. At a mean daily dose of 16 mg of enalapril and 57 mg of nifedipine-ER, more than three quarters of each treatment group achieved a satisfactory response. The mean reductions in trough sitting blood pressure levels at the end of 22 weeks of treatment were 15/11 mmHg for enalapril and 21/13 mmHg for nifedipine-ER. The difference between treatments was significant only for the change in systolic blood pressure (P < 0.05). However, enalapril was better tolerated than nifedipine-ER. The numbers of patients with adverse experiences and withdrawals from the study because of an adverse experience were significantly lower for enalapril than for nifedipine-ER (P < 0.05). The incidence of abnormal laboratory findings was small and considered of no clinical importance in either group. These data suggest that enalapril and nifedipine-ER had approximately equal efficacy as once-daily antihypertensive treatments, but enalapril was better tolerated.     

Epidemiology of extrapulmonary tuberculosis among persons with AIDS in the United States

We compared the antihypertensive efficacy of once-daily amlodipine (AM) versus nitrendipine (NTR) by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (24-h ABPM) in 32 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (EH). After a 2-week single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomized in a double-blind, parallel fashion: 14 received AM 5 mg and 18 NTR 10 mg. After 2 weeks, dose was adjusted if necessary (AM 10 mg or NTR 20 mg) and continued for another 6-week period. At the end of the placebo period and during the last week of treatment, patients underwent 24-h ABPM. Initial office BP mean values were similar in both groups (169.8 +/- 14/102.5 +/- 6 vs. 167.1 +/- 14/98.7 +/- 5 mm Hg, respectively, p = NS). A comparable decrease in office mean values of systolic BP (SBP, -22.3 +/- 13 vs. -19.1 +/- 16 mm Hg) and diastolic BP (DBP, -12.0 +/- 5 vs. -8.1 +/- 8 mm Hg) was observed. Nevertheless, 24-h ABPM mean values differed significantly between patients treated with AM or NTR with regard to 24-h SBP (120.0 +/- 10 vs. 132.5 +/- 1 mm Hg, p = 0.01). Moreover, the average decrease in 24-h SBP (-19.3 +/- 6 vs. -5.2 +/- 11 mm Hg, p = 0.0036) and 24-h DBP (-10.7 +/- 4 vs. -3.7 +/- 6 mm Hg, p = 0.0047) was higher in the AM group, with no changes in 24-h heart rate (HR). At equivalent once-daily dosage, AM was more effective than NTR in decreasing BP assessed by 24-h ABPM.     

Effects of benazepril on stress testing blood pressure in essential hypertension

The effects of different doses of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor benazepril on cardiovascular response to a set of standardized laboratory tasks were analyzed. Eighteen patients (15 men and 3 women) with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension were randomly allocated to receive 10 or 20 mg of benazepril, or placebo, each administered once daily for 2 weeks, according to a double-blind, 3-period design. At the end of each treatment period, patients were examined at resting baseline and while performing mental arithmetic, handgrip and cycle ergometry tests. In comparison with placebo, the average reductions in resting systolic blood pressure (BP) were 8.7 mm Hg (95% confidence intervals [CI] -15.2 to -2.1) with 10 mg of benazepril, and 7.8 mm Hg (95% CI -14.4 to -1.3) with 20 mg; the corresponding reductions in resting diastolic BP were 5.1 mm Hg (95% CI -8.7 to -1.4) and 6.8 mm Hg (95% CI -10.4 to -3.1) (all p < 0.05). During mental arithmetic, the reductions in systolic BP were 10.4 mm Hg (95% CI -17.4 to -3.4) with 10 mg of benazepril, and 13.8 mm Hg (95% CI -20.8 to -6.8) with 20 mg; diastolic BP was reduced by 4.5 mm Hg (95% CI -8.5 to -0.5) and 8.3 mm Hg (95% CI -13.2 to -4.3), respectively (all p < 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)