Valsartan, a new angiotensin II antagonist: antihypertensive effects over 24 hours

This study was done to assess the antihypertensive efficacy of once-daily valsartan 20 mg, 80 mg, 160 mg, and 320 mg over 24 hours using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). A total of 217 adult outpatients with uncomplicated essential hypertension (office mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] of > or = 95 to < or = 115 mm Hg) participated in this multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomized to receive valsartan 20 mg, 80 mg, 160 mg, 320 mg, or placebo for 8 weeks. Twenty-four-hour ABPM was done at baseline and after 8 weeks of treatment. All valsartan doses produced significant decreases in average ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) and DBP over 24 hours compared with placebo. A trend to greater reductions compared with placebo was observed for doses of valsartan 80 mg and greater (80 mg, -6.61 mm Hg DBP, -11.04 mm Hg SBP; 160 mg, -5.51 mm Hg DBP, -10.61 mm Hg SBP; 320 mg, -8.44 mm Hg DBP, -14.34 mm Hg SBP) compared with valsartan 20 mg (-3.52 mm Hg DBP, -5.92 mm Hg SBP). Valsartan produced consistent reductions compared with placebo during both day (> 6 AM to < or = 10 PM) and night (> 10 PM to < or = 6 AM). However, in all groups, the circadian pattern of blood pressure over 24 hours was preserved and was similar to that observed at baseline (but shifted into the normotensive range in a parallel fashion). The data show that single daily doses of valsartan 80 mg and greater provide effective control of both DBP and SBP over a 24-hour period without loss of diurnal variation.     

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.     

Population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of moxonidine using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements

OBJECTIVES: To develop a model for 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM) that can be applied in a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model. METHODS: Four different data sets were prepared from 2 studies to accommodate different modeling strategies. In study A, a double-blind placebo-controlled study in 47 patients, 24-hour ABPM profiles (74 to 99 measurements per profile) were obtained during the placebo run-in phase and after 3, 5, and 11 weeks during the treatment. Three to 5 plasma samples were taken. Cosine and polynomial models were evaluated to describe the circadian rhythm in blood pressure based on 3 data sets (1: only run-in data; 2: only placebo data; 3: all data). In study B, a double-blind placebo-controlled study in 94 patients, two 24-hour ABPM profiles per patient (during placebo run-in and after 8 weeks) were recorded and randomly reduced to 15 measurements per profile to evaluate the robustness of the baseline model. RESULTS: The mean moxonidine clearance was 35 L/h, and the volume of distribution was 132 L. The final baseline model consisted of 2 cosine terms with fixed-effect parameters for rhythm-adjusted 24-hour mean blood pressure, amplitude, phase, and period; random-effect parameters for interindividual variability in rhythm-adjusted 24-hour mean, amplitude, and clock time; and interoccasion variability in rhythm-adjusted 24-hour mean and clock time. The final baseline model was combined with an Emax model for the drug effect. An effect compartment was used (kco = 0.198 h-1). The maximum decrease in diastolic blood pressure (Emax) was 16.7%, and EC50 was 0.945 microgram/L. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model for 24-hour ABPM can be used to estimate the concentration-effect relationship of antihypertensive drugs.     

Laparoscopic repair of chronic traumatic diaphragmatic hernia: case report and review of the literature

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of nisoldipine coat core (CC) 10-40 mg o.d. and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25-50 mg o.d. Patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension received either nisoldipine CC 10 mg o.d. or HCTZ 25 mg o.d. Treatment was titrated at two-weekly intervals as necessary. The primary efficacy endpoint was a defined reduction in diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Response rates were similar for both the nisoldipine CC- and HCTZ-treated groups (74% and 70%, respectively). Secondary efficacy endpoints were reductions in both diastolic and systolic blood pressures (SBP). At treatment endpoint, the change from baseline in SBP was 16.2 mmHg for the nisoldipine CC group and 14.9 mmHg for the HCTZ group. Both drugs were well tolerated, and adverse events were generally minor and typical of these antihypertensive agents. Drug-related adverse events were greater in the nisoldipine CC- than the HCTZ-treated patients (50% and 37%, respectively). Nisoldipine CC was shown to demonstrate antihypertensive efficacy similar to HCTZ in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension.     

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.     

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.     

Valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with essential hypertension. A multiple dose, double-blind, placebo controlled trial comparing combination therapy with monotherapy

OBJECTIVE: This study compares the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of valsartan, a novel angiotensin II antagonist, given with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs placebo or vs valsartan or HCTZ alone. DESIGN: 871 adult out-patients with essential hypertension participated in this double-blind study. Patients were randomised in equal number to receive either combination therapy of valsartan (80 mg or 160 mg) and HCTZ (12.5 mg or 25 mg), or valsartan (80 mg or 160 mg) or HCTZ (12.5 mg or 25 mg) alone, or placebo. Patients were treated once daily for 8 weeks and assessed at 2, 4 and 8 weeks after randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) at end-point. The secondary variable was change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) from baseline to end-point. RESULTS: All active treatments produced a statistically significant difference in MSDBP (P < 0.001) from baseline to end-point compared with placebo. Similar results were obtained for MSSBP. All combination regimens produced a statistically significantly greater reduction in MSDPB and MSSBP than the corresponding monotherapies. Dizziness and headache were the most common treatment-related adverse experiences reported. Hypokalaemia, associated with the use of thiazide diuretics, was more commonly reported in the higher dose HCTZ 25 mg groups. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan 80 mg and 160 mg act additively with HCTZ 12.5 mg or 25 mg to lower MSDBP and MSSBP in patients with essential hypertension. The addition of HCTZ to valsartan 80 mg or 160 mg was well tolerated.     

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.     

Evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy of delayed-action diltiazem in the treatment of mild and moderate hypertension, with ambulatory of blood pressure monitoring

PURPOSE: To evaluate the behaviour of 24 hour blood pressure and the therapeutic efficacy of diltiazem 240mg (slow release) in mild and moderate hypertension. METHODS: In an open noncomparative study 20 hypertensive patients were evaluated after two weeks of wash out and eight weeks of therapy. Diltiazem 240mg, slow-release, was used in once a day basis. The blood pressure was evaluated through casual measures and by ambulatorial (ABPM) blood pressure monitorization. RESULTS: Sixteen patients (80%) reached therapeutic success (PAD nomalization or at least a reduction of 10mmHg), after six weeks of therapy. There were no changes in heart rate nor orthostatic hypotension. The mean reduction for the systolic blood pressure (PAS) was the 19.25mmHg and for PAD 11.60mmHg. The variables identified in ABPM (systolic and dyastolic load, SBP and DBP) showed significant reduction with maintenance of the circadian rhythm. CONCLUSION: Diltiazem 240mg, slow release, showed significant reduction (therapeutic success = 80%) in blood pressure of mild and moderate hypertensive patients associated with excellent tolerability. The circadian rhythm has been kept. The variables measured by ABPM were significantly reduced. Diltiazem demonstrated to be an important alternative for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension due to its beneficial therapeutic effects associated to the once daily dosage.     

Feasibility of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients

The prevalence and natural history of severe proteinuria in mild to moderate hypertension are not completely defined. We screened 1635 men with a history of hypertension and randomized 1292 with untreated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-109 mmHg to single-drug treatment with either hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, captopril, clonidine, diltiazem-SR, prazosin, or placebo in a double-blind prospective trial. Twenty-seven of 1635 patients (1.7%) satisfying clinical criteria for primary hypertension were found to have developed proteinuria > 1000 mg/24 hours and were removed from the study. Follow-up data were obtained on 19 of these 27 patients. One patient was found to have focal segmental sclerosis and progressed to end-stage renal disease. Three other patients developed severe (serum creatinine > 3.5 mg/dl) chronic renal failure (one with diabetic nephropathy), one progressed from serum creatinine 1.4 to 2.2 mg/dl, but 14 of the 19 remained with stable serum creatinine < 2.0 mg/dl on follow-up for 6-9 years. Data were available for 1076 of 1155 (93%) treated study patients at end titration, 522/600 (87%) at one year and 322/444 (73%) at two years. There were significant associations for proteinuria with obesity and higher systolic blood pressure. There was a trend toward significant difference in mean 24-hour protein excretion rates at baseline between black (127 mg) and white (139 mg) patients (p = 0.07). There were no statistically significant changes in urinary protein excretion/24 hours between or within the different treatment groups (including placebo). Eighteen patients were removed from the study during the active treatment phase for proteinuria > 1000 mg/24 hours: hydrochlorothiazide 4, placebo 3, diltiazem 3, prazosin 3, atenolol 2, clonidine 2, and captopril 1. We conclude: (1) the prevalence of severe (> 1 g/24 hours) proteinuria in the hypertensive population is significant but does not necessarily imply a poor prognosis; (2) mean 24-hour urinary protein excretion rates did not vary in response to the different classes of antihypertensive drugs; and (3) there was no drug-specific increase in proteinuria detected in this study.     

A randomised crossover comparison of reserpine and sustained-release nifedipine in hypertension

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the combination of hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) plus sustained-release nifedipine with the combination of HCT plus reserpine in lowering high blood pressure (BP) unresponsive to HCT monotherapy. DESIGN: An open, randomised crossover drug trial. SETTING: Outpatients' clinic in Parirenyatwa Hospital, Harare, a tertiary referral centre. SUBJECTS: 32 Black patients of both sexes with newly diagnosed or previously treated hypertension aged between 21 and 65 years who had a BP > 140/95 after receiving HCT 25 mg daily for four weeks were studied. INTERVENTION: Patients were kept on HCT 25 mg daily and were randomised to receive either reserpine 0.25 mg daily or nifedipine (Adalat Retard) 20 mg bd for four weeks. This was followed by a two week washout period during which patients received HCT 25 mg daily only. After the washout period patients were crossed over to the alternative treatment for four weeks. Patients were kept on HCT 25 mg daily throughout the trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was the fall in BP which was taken as the difference between the BP at baseline and the BP at the end of each treatment period. Both systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) measurements were taken. RESULTS: Both second line drugs were effective in lowering SBP and DBP and there was no significant difference between them. Nifedipine reduced SBP by 18.9 mmHg (95% CI 12.1 to 25.7) and DBP by 9.6 mmHg (95% CI 7.2 to 12.0). Reserpine reduced SBP by 15.9 mmHg (95% CI 8.4 to 23.4) and DBP by 11.1 mmHg (95% CI 7.5 to 14.6). However, only two patients attained the target DBP of < or = 90 mmHg after each active treatment period. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Since both agents were equally effective in reducing both SBP and DBP and reserpine is much cheaper than nifedipine, it is recommended that for a developing country like Zimbabwe, the combination of HCT and reserpine at the above doses should be used as the first step to treat mild to moderate hypertension without evidence of end organ damage. However, further trials should compare BP lowering effects as well as end organ protection offered by the trial drugs.     

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.     

Effects of cilazapril on renal haemodynamics and function in hypertensive patients: a randomised controlled study versus hydrochlorothiazide

In this study the efficacy and safety of short-term cilazapril administration on renal haemodynamics were evaluated in mild to moderate hypertensive subjects. Our final goal was to evaluate whether the reduction in blood pressure achieved by treatment was associated with maintained renal function. After a run-in period with placebo, 40 hypertensive subjects without renal or cardiac diseases were randomly allocated to a double-blind 4 week controlled trial with cilazapril 5 mg once a day (20 patients) or hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg once a day (20 patients). Renal haemodynamics measurements included effective renal plasma flow (ERPF) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by radionuclide study using 131I-hippuran and 99mTc, according to the methods described by Schlegel and Gates, respectively. Effective renal blood flow [ERBF = ERPF/(1-Ht)], filtration fraction (FF = GFR/ERPF) and renal vascular resistance (RVR = MBP x 80/ERBF) were calculated. At the end of cilazapril and hydrochlorothiazide administration significant decreases (p < 0.001) in SBP, DBP and MBP vs baseline values were observed. In the cilazapril group a significant decrease (p < 0.001) in RVR and FF and a significant increase (p < 0.001) in ERPF and ERBF were also found. In the hydrochlorothiazide group a significant decrease (p < 0.001) in RVR was found. No important side effects were observed with either treatment. In conclusion our data indicate that both cilazapril and hydrochlorothiazide reduced blood pressure equally well but only cilazapril improved renal blood flow and reduced filtration fraction.     

Conserved themes but novel activities in recombinases and topoisomerases

OBJECTIVE: Hypertension is thought to play an important role in the pathogenesis of acromegalic cardiomyopathy. So far, hypertension has been defined by clinical measurement, with considerable variations reported concerning its prevalence in acromegalics. DESIGN: To determine the mean blood pressure (BP) values and the prevalence of hypertension in patients with active acromegaly according to non-invasive 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and to compare the data obtained with those provided by clinical measurement. PATIENTS: Forty patients with active acromegaly (22 women, 18 men, mean age 48.6 +/- 12.5 years) were included. Patients were in wash-out for antihypertensive treatment and none had been using any medical treatment for acromegaly for at least 3 months before the study. All were studied as outpatients. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical BP values were calculated as the mean of BP values obtained by standard sphygmomanometric measurement in three separate occasions. Mean 24-hour, daytime and night-time BP values were obtained by ABPM. RESULTS: The mean 24-hour BP values were lower than clinical BP values, the difference being significant for both systolic BP (SBP: 131.1 +/- 21.5 versus 136.1 +/- 16.3 mmHg, P < 0.02) and for diastolic BP (DBP: 74.6 +/- 10.6 versus 88.8 +/- 9.1 mmHg, P < 0.0001). ABPM values recorded during the daytime were 137.8 +/- 20.9 mmHg for SBP and 78.6 +/- 11.5 mmHg for DBP, the latter being significantly lower than the corresponding clinical BP values (P < 0.0001). About 60% of the patients considered hypertensive by clinical measurement were found to be normotensive by ABPM, thereby decreasing the prevalence of hypertension in this series from 42.5% to 17.5% according to ABPM (P < 0.02). In contrast, all patients defined as normotensive by clinical measurement were also normotensive by ABPM. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring indicated a lower prevalence of hypertension in acromegalic patients then usually reported, suggesting that the role of hypertension in the pathogenesis of acromegalic cardiomyopathy is commonly overestimated. We propose that ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring should be routinely proposed in acromegalics with high or borderline clinical blood pressure values although it is not useful in patients defined normotensive according to repeated clinical measurement.     

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.     

Effects of rilmenidine (hyperium) on lipid balance in hyperlipidemic hypertensive patients. Randomized, controlled, double-blind 8-week study vs. captopril in parallel groups

Rilmenidine (dose of 1 mg once or twice a day) is the first oxazoline compound with antihypertensive properties. Its effects on lipid parameters [total cholesterol, HDL and LDL fractions, triglycerides, apolipoprotein A1 and B, lipoprotein (a)] were compared under double-blind conditions and in parallel groups to those of captopril (50 to 100 mg per day, in 2 divided doses) over a period of 8 weeks, in 51 hyperlipidaemic hypertensive patients [age: 56.3 +/- 1.5 years, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP): 165.1 +/- 2.0/99.1 +/- 0.6 mmHg, LDL cholesterol: 5.38 +/- 0.16 mmol/L]. No significant difference was demonstrated between the groups on inclusion for any of the clinical parameters (SBP, DBP, heart rate (HR)) and laboratory parameters, apart from apolipoprotein A1, for which the mean value was higher in the rilmenidine group than in the captopril group (p < 0.05). No difference between the groups was demonstrated during the 8 weeks of treatment for the course of blood pressure: SBP and DBP decreased by 20.5 and 13.9 mmHg, respectively, in the rilmenidine group and by 21.3 and 13.1 mmHg in the captopril group (no significant difference: NS). HR decreased by 0.3 beats per minute (bpm) in the rilmenidine group and by 4.1 bpm in the captopril group (NS). No statistically significant difference in lipid parameters was observed between the two groups. No clinically significant variation in any of the lipid parameters was observed after 8 weeks of treatment with rilmenidine or captopril. These results confirm the antihypertensive efficacy and neutrality of rilmenidine on lipid metabolism over a period of 8 weeks. Rilmenidine therefore represents a useful alternative in the first-line treatment of hypertension in hyperlipidaemic hypertensive patients.     

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.     

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.     

Long-term reproducibility and usefulness of daytime recording of noninvasive 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in borderline hypertension: a two-year follow-up study

We investigated the long-term reproducibility of noninvasive 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) compared with casual blood pressure measurements in 54 individuals (47 +/- 11 years) with borderline hypertension. ABPM and casual blood pressure measurements were obtained 3 times over 2 year period. ABPM data were analyzed to determine the average 24-hour blood pressure (24-BP), the average blood pressure during the waking hours (Day-BP), and the average blood pressure from the time the subject went to bed until he awoke (Night-BP). ABPM measurements were similar for Year 1, 2, and 3 (24-BP: Year 1; 130 +/- 10/79 +/- 6 mmHg; Year 2; 130 +/- 10/79 +/- 7 mmHg; and Year 3; 130 +/- 10/78 +/- 7 mmHg). Bland-Altman analysis and standard deviation of the difference also indicated the reproducibility of 24-BP was better than casual pressure. The 24-BP was significantly correlated with both Day-BP and Night-BP for each year. Day-BP showed the stronger correlation. Our results suggest that Day-BP provides reproducible estimation in subjects with borderline hypertension.