Prognostic evaluation of early indicators in fulminant hepatic failure by multivariate analysis

Results of eight multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group studies were pooled to assess the efficacy of the angiotensin II-receptor blocker irbesartan over the dose range of 1 to 900 mg. A total of 2955 adults with a seated diastolic blood pressure of 95 to 110 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with oral irbesartan once daily or placebo for 6 to 8 weeks. Office blood pressure was measured at trough (24+/-3 hours after the last dose) and peak (3+/-1 hours after the last dose) by mercury sphygmomanometry. Demographic characteristics (mean blood pressure; 151/101 mm Hg; mean age, 54 years; 63% male; and 82% white) were similar across all dose groups. After the groups were pooled, antihypertensive efficacy was assessed by therapeutic response (trough seated diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or a reduction from baseline of > or = 10 mm Hg) and by modeling of the maximum reductions in trough and peak seated diastolic and systolic blood pressure. Antihypertensive effects increased with increasing doses and reached a plateau at > or = 300 mg. Irbesartan 150 mg provided placebo-subtracted reductions in trough seated systolic and diastolic blood pressure of approximately 8 and approximately 5 mm Hg, respectively, with 56% of patients displaying a favorable response. In conclusion, irbesartan provides clinically significant blood pressure lowering, with a clear relationship between (log) dose and antihypertensive effect.     

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.     

Vectorcardiographic evaluation of myocardial infarct size: departure parameters are superior to conventional spatial parameters

OBJECTIVE: To measure the effects of losartan and amlodipine on peripheral capillary microcirculation in hypertension. SETTING: Medical out-patient clinic, Basel, in a university teaching hospital. METHODS: After a 4-week placebo run-in period 20 patients aged 50 +/- 8 (range 36-65) years with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomly allocated to receive active treatment with losartan 50 mg titrated to losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) 12.5 mg, or amlodipine 5 mg titrated to 10 mg for a 12 week period. Titration was performed if diastolic blood pressure (BP) was > or=90 mm Hg after 6 weeks of treatment. BP measurements as well as video capillary microscopy of the finger nailfold at the end of the placebo period and after 12 weeks of active treatment were compared. Capillary blood cell velocity was measured at rest and immediately, 1 min and 2 min after local finger cooling. RESULTS: After 3 months of treatment with amlodipine (n = 10) and losartan titrated to losartan-HCT (n = 10) sitting BP decreased significantly from 160 +/- 7/103 +/- 4 mm Hg and 147 +/- 7/98 +/- 6 mm Hg to 131 +/- 10/86 +/- 7 mm Hg and 134 +/- 17/89 +/- 9 mm Hg, respectively (P < 0.01). After local finger cooling the area under the curve (AUC) of capillary blood cell velocities was 1.13 +/- 0.58 mm (median +/- s.d.) at baseline and increased to 1.94 +/- 1.15 (P < 0.05) in losartan/losartan-HCT treated patients. In amlodipine treated patients the increase in AUC of capillary blood cell velocity did not reach the level of statistical significance (1.59 +/- 1.36 to 2.14 +/- 1.05 mm). CONCLUSION: This small trial shows that the area under the curve of capillary blood cell velocity increases in hypertensive patients treated with both losartan/losartan-HCT and amlodipine compared with baseline values.     

Comparative antihypertensive effectiveness of once-daily mibefradil and diltiazem CD. Mibefradil Hypertension Study Group

This multicenter, double-masked, randomized, forced-titration, parallel-group trial was designed to determine whether we could confirm the results of a previous trial that demonstrated a significantly greater antihypertensive effect for mibefradil compared with diltiazem CD. Two hundred thirty-nine patients with uncomplicated mild-to-moderate essential hypertension and a baseline sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) between 95 and 114 mm Hg were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with mibefradil 50 mg (n = 119) or diltiazem CD 180 mg (n = 120). After 4 weeks of treatment, all patients underwent forced titration to mibefradil 100 mg or diltiazem CD 360 mg for an additional 8 weeks. After 12 weeks of active treatment, the mean reduction from baseline in trough SDBP was significantly greater with mibefradil than with diltiazem CD (-14.3 +/- 6.6 mm Hg vs -11.7 +/- 7.4 mm Hg, respectively). In addition, significantly more patients receiving mibefradil had a decrease in SDBP > or = 10 mm Hg or a decrease to < or = 90 mm Hg by week 12 than did patients receiving diltiazem CD (82% vs 72%, respectively). The tolerability of mibefradil and diltiazem CD were comparable, with similar percentages of patients in both groups reporting at least one adverse event (21% vs 22%, respectively) that was considered to be at least remotely related to the study drug. The results of this study confirm those of the previous trial. Once-daily treatment with mibefradil 100 mg is significantly more effective than diltiazem CD 360 mg in lowering both diastolic and systolic blood pressure. Both drugs are well tolerated.     

Effect of losartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, on portal pressure in cirrhosis

Administration of angiotensin II causes an increase in portal pressure, and plasma concentration of angiotensin II is elevated in patients with cirrhosis, suggesting that angiotensin II may be involved in the pathogenesis of portal hypertension in cirrhosis. We evaluated the effect of the orally active angiotensin II receptor antagonist, losartan, on portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Thirty patients with severe (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] >/= 20 mm Hg) and 15 patients with moderate (HVPG < 20 mm Hg) portal hypertension at baseline measurement were treated with an oral dose of 25 mg losartan once daily for 1 week and compared with 15 (HVPG >/= 20 mm Hg) and 10 (HVPG < 20 mm Hg), respectively, cirrhotic controls. On the seventh day, HVPG was determined again, and blood pressure, heart rate, body weight, and parameters of liver and kidney function were recorded. Losartan induced a significant (P <.001) decrease of HVPG in the patients with severe (-46.8% +/- 15.5%) and moderate (-44.1% +/- 14.7%) portal hypertension, while no significant change was seen in the controls. Losartan caused a slight but significant (P <.01) fall in mean arterial blood pressure (-3.1 +/- 5.0 and -3.5 +/- 4.3 mm Hg, respectively). One patient treated with losartan had a short symptomatic hypotensive reaction after the first dose of losartan that did not recur despite continued treatment. No deterioration of liver or kidney function was observed. The present study indicates that angiotensin II blockade with orally administered losartan is safe and highly effective in the treatment of portal hypertension.     

The treatment of severe hypertension with trandolapril, verapamil, and hydrochlorothiazide. Trandolapril/Verapamil Multicenter Study Group

A multiple drug regimen consisting of trandolapril, verapamil and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) were sequentially added in an open-label evaluation of patients with severe hypertension. Ninety patients (58 white and 32 black patients) were titrated on one or more drugs and followed for a 19-week maintenance period. Statistically significant (P = 0.001) mean (+/-s.d.) decreases in supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were 9.0 (+/-9.3) mm Hg for trandolapril, 13.9 (+/-11.0) mm Hg for the trandolapril + verapamil (TV) combination, and 19.0 (+/-12.3) mm Hg when hydrochlorothiazide was added to the combination. The decrease in BP observed on TV combination therapy plus HCTZ was significantly (P = 0.001) greater than the decrease observed for the TV combination, which was significantly (P = 0.001) greater than the decrease observed for trandolapril monotherapy. Clinical responder rates were 44.8%, 56% and 77.7% for trandolapril monotherapy, trandolapril + verapamil combination therapy and triple therapy, respectively. Black and white patients had similar response rates, but black patients appeared to benefit more from the addition of HCTZ; 20% of black patients achieved a post-treatment supine DBP <90 mm Hg compared to 12.8% of white patients. This study demonstrates that the addition of verapamil to trandolapril has an additive effect on BP that is maintained throughout the day.     

Candesartan cilexetil. A review of its use in essential hypertension

Candesartan cilexetil is completely converted to the nonpeptide angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan during absorption from the gastrointestinal tract. Candesartan selectively blocks and dissociates slowly from the angiotensin II subtype 1 (AT1) receptor which mediates most of the known activities of angiotensin II. When administered once daily, oral candesartan cilexetil 8 to 32 mg dose-dependently and effectively reduces blood pressure in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. In comparative studies, candesartan cilexetil 8 mg/day was as effective as usual therapeutic dosages of enalapril, losartan potassium, hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine. One study showed candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/day to be more effective than losartan potassium 50 mg/day. Furthermore, the combination of candesartan cilexetil with either hydrochlorothiazide or amlodipine resulted in additive antihypertensive effects. Preliminary evidence suggests that the blood pressure-lowering effects of candesartan cilexetil are associated with the prevention or improvement of end-organ damage in patients with hypertension. However, this requires further confirmation in clinical studies. Candesartan cilexetil improves insulin sensitivity in patients with hypertension and does not affect glucose homeostasis or the serum lipid profile in those with coexisting type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus. Candesartan cilexetil is well tolerated in patients with hypertension. Pooled data indicate that the tolerability profile of the drug is not significantly different from that of placebo, with headache being the most commonly reported event. Adverse events are not dose related and are mostly mild to moderate in severity. Candesartan cilexetil is better tolerated than enalapril, primarily because of a reduced incidence of cough, and was not associated with the hypokalaemia or hyperuricaemia seen with hydrochlorothiazide in a study in patients aged > or = 75 years. The drug has an adverse events profile similar to that of losartan potassium in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Conclusions: once daily candesartan cilexetil is effective and well tolerated when used once daily (as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive agents) in patients with mild, moderate or severe hypertension. Initially, however, the drug is likely to be used as an alternative to other agents in patients not responding to or intolerant of their current drug therapy.     

ACE inhibition but not angiotensin II antagonism reduces plasma fibrinogen and insulin resistance in overweight hypertensive patients

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor perindopril and the angiotensin II antagonist losartan on insulin sensitivity and plasma fibrinogen in overweight hypertensive patients. Twenty-eight overweight mild to moderate [diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >90 and <110 mm Hg] hypertensives aged 43-64 years, after a 4-week placebo period, were randomized to perindopril, 4 mg o.d., or losartan, 50 mg o.d., for 6 weeks. Then, after a new placebo period, patients were crossed to the alternative regimen for further 6 weeks. At the end of the placebo and of the treatment periods, blood pressure was measured, plasma fibrinogen was evaluated, and insulin sensitivity was assessed by the euglycemic, hyperinsulinemic clamp technique. Glucose infusion rate (GIR) during the last 30 min of clamp and total glucose requirement (TGR) were evaluated. Both perindopril and losartan reduced SBP (by a mean of 20.2 mm Hg, p < 0.001 vs. placebo; and 15.8 mm Hg, p = 0.002 vs. placebo, respectively) and DBP (by a mean of 15.2 mm Hg, p = 0.001 vs. placebo, and 11.8 mm Hg, p = 0.01 vs. placebo respectively), with no difference between the two treatments. GIR was significantly increased by perindopril (+2.91 mg/min/kg, p = 0.042 vs. placebo), but not by losartan (+0.28 mg/min/kg, NS). TGR was not modified by losartan but was increased by perindopril (+9.3 g, p = 0.042 vs. placebo). Plasma fibrinogen levels were reduced by perindopril (-53.4 mg/dl, p = 0.022 vs. placebo) but not by losartan (-16.8 mg/dl, NS). The perindopril-induced decrease in fibrinogen was correlated with the increase in GIR (r = 0.39; p < 0.01). These findings suggest that fibrinogen decrease produced by the ACE inhibitor is related to its action on insulin sensitivity, which seems to be dependent not on angiotensin II blockade but rather on other mechanisms.     

Efficacy and tolerability of extended-release felodipine and extended-release nifedipine in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension

The efficacy and tolerability of extended-release felodipine (felodipine-ER) and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (nifedipine GITS) were compared in a multicenter, prospective, open-label clinical trial of 277 patients with mild-to-moderate uncomplicated essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [SiDBP] > or = 95 and < or = 115 mm Hg). After a 3-week washout period, patients were randomized to receive felodipine-ER (5 mg once daily) or nifedipine GITS (30 mg once daily); during a subsequent 6-week titration phase, the once-daily felodipine-ER dose could be increased to 10 mg and the nifedipine GITS dose to 60 or 90 mg in an attempt to achieve adequate blood pressure response (SiDBP < or = 90 mm Hg, or < 100 mm Hg with a > 10-mm Hg reduction from baseline, as measured 24 hours after dosing [trough]). At the end of titration, the mean daily doses of felodipine-ER and nifedipine GITS were 8 and 50 mg, respectively. Mean changes in sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP)/SiDBP were -14/-12 and -16/-13 mm Hg, respectively. All reductions were significant when compared with baseline (P < 0.01), but there were no significant differences between treatment groups. Adequate blood pressure response occurred in 77% of the felodipine-ER group and 80% of the nifedipine GITS group; this difference was not significant. Blood pressure changes were similar among sex and race subgroups. A higher percentage of older patients (> 55 years of age) than younger patients (< or = 55 years of age) reached goal SiDBP with both drugs. Patients with adequate SiDBP response continued receiving their assigned medication for an additional 6-week maintenance period. Reductions in SiDBP and SiSBP from baseline continued to be significant in both treatment groups. No clinically important changes in heart rate were noted. A total of 28 patients (15 in the felodipine-ER group and 13 in the nifedipine GITS group) withdrew from the study because of inadequate blood pressure response. At least one adverse experience occurred in 55% of the felodipine-ER group and 63% of the nifedipine GITS group, prompting withdrawal of 14 patients (10%) and 16 patients (11%), respectively. Headache and edema were the most common adverse experiences. The incidence and pattern of adverse experiences did not differ significantly between treatments. The results of this study demonstrate that once-daily felodipine-ER and nifedipine GITS are similarly highly effective and generally well tolerated in patients with essential hypertension.     

Comparison of the angiotensin II antagonist losartan with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in patients with essential hypertension

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the blood pressure lowering efficacy as well as tolerability and safety of the angiotensin II antagonist losartan compared with that of the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel study. Patients (n = 407) with diastolic blood pressure > or = 95 and < or = 120 mmHg at the end of a 2-week baseline placebo period were randomly allocated to receive either 50 mg losartan once a day or 20 mg enalapril once a day for 12 weeks. Blood pressure, clinical and laboratory safety, specific symptoms including coughing determined using a symptoms questionnaire and metabolic variables were examined at baseline and at weeks 6 and 12. RESULTS: Both losartan and enalapril decreased systolic and diastolic blood pressure from baseline at weeks 6 and 12. Blood pressure changes from baseline at trough (22-26 h after the dose) did not differ between the two groups in the per-protocol analysis. Response to treatment at trough was excellent or good (diastolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg or reduction in diastolic blood pressure of 10 mmHg) in 51 and 53% of the patients in the losartan and enalapril groups, respectively. Enalapril administration increased dry coughing symptoms whereas losartan did not. The incidence of dry coughing was 1.0 and 12.2% as a spontaneously reported discomfort at week 12 and 3.0 and 15.1% as a clinical adverse experience in the losartan and enalapril groups, respectively. The difference from baseline at week 12 in the incidence of dry coughing between the two groups was 14.9% as a specific symptom in the symptoms questionnaire. Losartan reduced serum uric acid concentration, whereas effects on other metabolic parameters did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Losartan is an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive drug showing similar blood-pressure-lowering efficacy to that of enalapril at trough. However, in contrast to enalapril, losartan does not increase the incidence of dry coughing. Thus, the angiotensin II antagonist losartan provides a promising new approach to treatment of hypertension.     

Optimization of antihypertensive therapy with a novel, extended-release formulation of diltiazem: results of a practice-based clinical study

Although the effectiveness of diltiazem for the treatment of patients with hypertension has been well demonstrated in numerous placebo-controlled and comparative clinical trials, most physicians have had some concern about its efficacy and have used it predominantly in patients with mild hypertension. Few large-scale studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of higher dosages of diltiazem for the treatment of patients with hypertension, and few have evaluated the use of diltiazem in patients with more severe hypertension. Tiazac (Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri), a new, extended-release formulation of diltiazem, provides 24-hour blood pressure control with a single daily dose of up to 360 mg. The Study of Titration and Response to Tiazac (START) is an ongoing practice-based, open-label, multicenter study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of Tiazac at greater-than-traditional doses in hypertensive patients and to assess the ability of Tiazac to decrease the rate-pressure product, a surrogate marker for cardiac workload. Patients were eligible for study entry whether their hypertension was newly diagnosed or previously treated with a different formulation of diltiazem or any other antihypertensive agent. Normotensive (sitting diastolic blood pressure [SDBP] < 90 mm Hg) subjects and those with mild (SDBP 90 to 99 mm Hg), moderate (SDBP 100 to 109 mm Hg), severe (SDBP 110 to 119 mm Hg), and very severe (SDBP > or = 120 mm Hg) hypertension were assessed at baseline (visit 1), visit 2 (10 to 14 days after visit 1), and visit 3 (25 to 28 days after visit 1). A total of 3082 patients were enrolled, and data from 2802 assessable patients (i.e., those who completed visits 1, 2, and 3) were analyzed. No subjects were lost to follow-up as a result of adverse effects. All subjects received a starting dose of Tiazac 180 mg or 240 mg once daily, and doses were titrated upward to 360 mg once daily as clinically indicated. Blood pressure reduction matched the severity of hypertension in all patients. Subjects who were switched from another diltiazem formulation demonstrated further decreases in SDBP. Antihypertensive monotherapy with Tiazac was well tolerated. This interim START report demonstrates that a daily dose of up to 360 mg of diltiazem is optimal in terms of both control of hypertension and patient compliance. It also provides the practice-based physician with useful clinical information on dose titration and response to a new formulation of an approved drug and supports the efficacy and safety profiles of diltiazem documented in previous well-controlled clinical trials.     

Ramipril and felodipine: a comparison of the efficacy and safety of monotherapy versus combination therapy

A multinational, double-blind, randomised study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of a low-dose combination of the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, and the calcium antagonist, felodipine ER, in 642 patients with mild to moderate hypertension [supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) = 95-115 mm Hg]. After a 4-week single-blind placebo run-in, patients were randomly allocated to once-daily felodipine extended release (ER; 2.5 mg), ramipril (2.5 mg) or felodipine ER/ramipril (2.5/2.5 mg) for 12 weeks. In the intention-to-treat analysis, mean DBP decreased significantly (p < 0.0001) after felodipine ER, ramipril and the combination (-9.1, -9.8 and -11.4 mm Hg, respectively). The decrease was significantly greater with the combination than with felodipine ER monotherapy (p = 0.02). The number of responding patients (final DBP < or = 90 mm Hg or a decrease of > or = 10 mm Hg) was also higher with the combination than with felodipine ER or ramipril monotherapy (65.1%, 53.1%, 55.7%, respectively). There were no differences between the three groups with respect to the incidence of adverse events overall or those considered treatment-related. There were fewer cases of peripheral oedema with combination therapy than with felodipine ER monotherapy. Thirty-three patients (5.1%) withdrew from the study because of adverse events, but there was no clear pattern with regard to the specific events leading to withdrawal. There were no clinically relevant changes in laboratory or clinical safety variables. Ramipril/felodipine ER 2.5/2.5 mg is an appropriate starting dosage when initiating combination antihypertensive therapy.     

Antihypertensive effects of combined lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide in elderly patients with systodiastolic or systolic hypertension: results of a multicenter trial

This study was aimed at evaluating the antihypertensive effect of lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide administered in the fixed combination of 20 and 12.5 mg, respectively, on clinic and 24-h blood pressure in elderly patients (age, 68.8 +/- 5.8 years, mean +/- SD) with mild-to-moderate essential systodiastolic or isolated systolic hypertension. After a washout period of 4 weeks, patients received once daily lisinopril combined with hydrochlorothiazide for a 6-week period. At the end of the washout and treatment periods, clinic blood pressure was assessed 24 h after dosing, and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure was monitored, taking blood pressure readings every 15 min. Pretreatment clinic blood pressure was 171.3 +/- 14.0/103.7 +/- 5.1 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic) in the group with systodiastolic hypertension (n = 405) and 179.6 +/- 9.4/83.6 +/- 5.4 mm Hg in the group with isolated systolic hypertension (n = 165). The corresponding 24-h average blood pressures were 144.1 +/- 13.9/88.7 +/- 8.4 mm Hg (n = 114) and 150.7 +/- 15.5/80.8 +/- 9.4 mm Hg (n = 40). Clinic blood pressure was significantly reduced by treatment in both groups. This was the case also for ambulatory blood pressure, which was reduced by 9.6 +/- 0.9%/9.9 +/- 0.9% in systodiastolic and by 11.8 +/- 1.3%/8.5 +/- 1.5% in isolated patients with systolic hypertension (p < 0.05 at least for all differences). The antihypertensive effect was similar in patients older and younger than 70 years. In all groups, it was manifest both during the day and the nighttime and was still significant after 24 h. Thus single daily administration of combined lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide effectively reduces blood pressure in elderly patients with hypertension.     

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.     

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.     

Double-blind, parallel, comparative multicentre study of a new combination of diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide with individual components in patients with mild or moderate hypertension

OBJECTIVE: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a new combination preparation of diltiazem (150 mg) and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg) with the individual constituents in patients with mild/moderate hypertension. DESIGN: Multi-centre, double-blind, randomised parallel group study. PATIENTS: Seventy-one patients with essential hypertension were recruited to the study. TREATMENT: Following completion of the placebo run-in period 63 patients fulfilled the prerandomisation criteria and entered the 10 week treatment period. Patients were randomised to receive either the combination preparation (D 150 mg/H 12.5 mg), diltiazem (150 mg) or hydrochlorthiazide (12.5 mg). The dosage was increased in three patients who had not attained target blood pressure (BP) control after 6 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: Response to treatment assessed by change from baseline in clinic and 24 h ambulatory BP. RESULTS: The proportion of patients achieving target BP (a reduction in resting supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) to below 90 mm Hg or a reduction of 10 mm Hg from baseline) was 80% in the combination group, 55% in the diltiazem group, and 38% in the hydrochlorothiazide group. The respective figures for reduction in supine DBP from baseline were 13.5 mm Hg, 11.2 mm Hg and 5.9 mm Hg. A similar treatment order appeared throughout each of the efficacy variables. BP control throughout the 24 h dosing interval was demonstrated by ambulatory BP monitoring. Each treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study provides clear evidence of the efficacy of combination therapy with diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide in the management of patients with hypertension.     

Main results of the losartan versus amlodipine (LOA) study on drug tolerability and psychological general well-being. LOA Study Group

OBJECTIVE: To compare two losartan regimens (with and without hydrochlorothiazide) and amlodipine in treating mild-to-moderate hypertension regarding their blood-pressure-lowering effect, drug tolerability and quality of life. DESIGN: A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multi-centre study. After 4 weeks of placebo, patients with a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in the range 95-115 mmHg were allocated randomly to be administered 50 mg losartan (increased to 100 mg if the DBP was 90 mmHg or more after 6 weeks), 50 mg losartan (plus 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide under the above conditions), or 5 mg amlodipine (increased to 10 mg under the above condition). The tolerability of the treatment and the quality of life were evaluated by spontaneous reporting, active questioning and the Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) index. STUDY POPULATION: In total 898 hypertensives, mainly referred from primary health care (mean age 57.8 years) of whom 52% were men. RESULTS: Administration of 50 mg losartan (plus 12.5 hydrochlorothiazide if necessary) and of 5 mg amlodipine (or 10 mg if necessary) lowered the blood pressure as well as or better than did 50 mg losartan (or 100 mg if necessary). The incidence of 'any discomfort' and 'swollen ankles' increased with amlodipine but not with losartan treatment. The opposite was found for 'dizziness upon standing'. The incidence of drug-related adverse events and the number of patients withdrawn from therapy were higher with amlodipine than they were with losartan treatment. The PGWB index at week 12 indicated that improvements from baseline had occurred in some domains for the losartan groups whereas it remained unchanged for the amlodipine group. CONCLUSION: Both losartan and amlodipine were effective in lowering the blood pressure and were tolerated well. Administration of 50 mg losartan (plus 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide if necessary) and of 5 mg amlodipine (or 10 mg if necessary) lowered the blood pressure equally well or better than did 50 mg losartan (or 100 mg if necessary). Drug-related adverse effects and withdrawal from the study were more common for the amlodipine group. The clinical significance of the improvements in the PGWB index with losartan needs to be studied further.     

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.     

Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure evaluation of antihypertensive agents

EVALUATION OF A SMOOTH BLOOD PRESSURE RESPONSE TO TREATMENT: Smooth or uniform blood pressure control is an obvious goal of antihypertensive therapy, but it is difficult to assess by the traditional clinic blood pressure measurements. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is therefore increasingly being used to evaluate new antihypertensive drugs and to assess the adequacy of treatment. The use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is based on two assumptions: that treatment must be continuously optimal, and that more frequent blood pressure measurements during treatment, particularly at different times and during various types of activity and mental states, may lead to a more accurate assessment than infrequent measurements in the clinic. When ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is used, the effect of a given antihypertensive agent or of a given antihypertensive regimen can be tested on the average blood pressure values over 24 h, or on day- or night-time values. The actual verification of the achievement of a uniform reduction of blood pressure throughout the 24-h time span can be achieved by comparing 24-h blood pressure profiles before treatment and during treatment. The so-called trough: peak ratio is generally used in an attempt at a more quantitative assessment of smooth control. Recently, we have developed the Smoothness Index, defined as the ratio between the mean hourly change in blood pressure (calculated over the 24-h period), divided by the standard deviation of these hourly changes. We have some indication that this may be a more accurate measurement of smooth blood pressure control under therapy than trough: peak ratios. TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR BLOOD PRESSURE CONTROL BY IRBESARTAN: Ambulatory blood pressure assessments are important during the clinical testing of new antihypertensive agents. Our group recently performed a multicenter study to compare the anti-hypertensive effect of three irbesartan dose regimens (75 mg once a day, 150 mg once a day, 75 mg twice a day) and placebo as measured by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and confirmed by office blood pressure measurements. All irbesartan regimens were significantly more effective than placebo. Irbesartan at 150 mg once a day provided clinically significant and sustained blood pressure reductions over a full 24 h and had the highest trough: peak ratio and Smoothness Index. No additional benefit was observed with twice-daily dosing using irbesartan at 75 mg compared with a single daily at 150 mg. Therefore irbesartan at a single daily dose of 150 mg offers real efficacy with the potential for greater ease of administration compared with twice-daily antihypertensive therapy.     

Mutual influence between vesicourethral and anorectal function in spinal cord injury patients

Twenty two patients having mild to moderate hypertension were treated with a single daily dose of amlodipine for 4 weeks. Satisfactory response defined as final diastolic blood pressure < 90 mm of Hg and a reduction from baseline values > 10 mm of Hg could be achieved in 81.8% of patients in supine position and 70% of patients in standing position. Thirteen patients responded to 5 mg dose and 9 patients required 10 mg. Postural hypotension and reflex tachycardia were absent. Three patients has mild leg cramps and constipation. No deleterious effects were observed on liver, kidney and hemopoetic function, or on E.C.G. Changes. Amlodipine given once daily is effective and safe, and is a useful addition to the existing armamentarium of antihypertensive drugs.