Stage I ovarian cancer by transvaginal color Doppler sonography: a report of 18 cases

PURPOSE: To evaluate the tolerability and 24 hours efficacy of a new anti-hypertensive drug: cilazapril. METHODS: In an open non comparative study 20 hypertensive patients (16 females, age from 30 to 60 years, average = 49.4) were followed for 6 weeks: 2 wash out and 4 treatment (5 mg OD). Blood pressure (BP) was measured by casual and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) readings. RESULTS: Comparing washout and treatment periods, ABPM averages both for systolic and diastolic BP (mmHg) showed significant decrease in 24 hours, during day and night sub periods. The decrease was not significant between averages considering the "early morning rising pressure" sub period. Heart rate averages showed significant reduction at all sub periods except during night. Adverse effects were mild and resolved spontaneously (n = 3, 15%). CONCLUSION: Cilazapril seems to be efficacious as antihypertensive. Tolerability is excellent. It preserved circadian rhythm despite significantly reducing blood pressure at all periods evaluated except early morning. A bradycardic effect observed mostly during day period should be better evaluated.     

Association between blood pressure and circulating hormonal factors with left ventricular mass in patients with essential hypertension older than 55 years of age

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is higher in elderly patients with hypertension than in normotensive patients. The factors relationed herewith are not well known. The first purpose was to analyse the relationship between the levels of blood pressure (BP) recorded by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in a group of untreated patients older than 55 years with essential hypertension. Our second purpose was to observe the relationship between the concentration of several circulating hormones and the left ventricular mass index. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study included 31 untreated patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension and 37 healthy normotensives. Both groups were of similar age, sex and body mass index. We determined for both groups the casual arterial pressure (CAP), ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) throughout 24 h, daytime (07.00-23.00 h), nighttime (23.00-07.00 h), left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (following Devereux's formula) and circulating levels of endothelin-1, aldosterone, renine, free adrenaline and noradrenaline. RESULTS: The ILVM in hypertensive patients was 139.6 +/- 35.9 g/m2 and in 124.0 +/- 31.8 g/m2 in normotensive (p < 0.05). The percentage of patients with LVH was 63 and 43%, respectively (p < 0.05). The LVMI in hypertensive patients was correlated with the diastolic CAP (97 +/- 7 mmHg) (r = 0.41; p < 0.05), unlike with the systolic CAP (164 +/- 18 mmHg). The ILVM in normotense patients was not associated neither with the systolic CAP (126 +/- 10 mmHg) nor with the diastolic (79 +/- 6 mmHg). In hypertensive patients we found a slight association between the LVMI and the systolic ABPM (130 +/- 14 mmHg) during nighttime (r = 0.41; p < 0.05). The rest of average ambulatory BP and the hormonal values at study did not show a correlation with the LVMI in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: A slight correlation exists between BP (casual and determined with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring throughout 24 hours) and the left ventricular mass index in mild to moderate untrated hypertensive patients older than 55 years. We did not observe correlations between the circulating levels of endothelin-1, renin, aldosterone, free adrenaline and noradrenaline and the left ventricular mass. The average ventricular mass and the number of subjects with ventricular hypertrophy was significantly increased in hypertensives than in normotensives.     

Efficacy of benazepril monotherapy in moderate essential hypertension studied by automatic ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

Authors examined the effects of benazepril, regarding the length of effectiveness by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), drug tolerable, and the compliance of patients in mild to moderate essential hypertension. 14 patients were treated with benazepril monotherapy. Six of them were newly diagnosed, and the rest had already been treated for hypertension. At the start, after six and 12 weeks, 24-hour monitoring was performed. Casual blood pressure (BP) measurements and detection of side-effects were also performed at 3rd and 9th-week. Prior the study the average daytime BP measured by ABPM was 149.1 +/- 7.7/96.6 +/- 4.7 mmHg. 10 mg of benazepril was first administered in the morning. By the end of the sixth week the average BP was significantly decreased (daily average: 139.1 +/- 9.9/88.2 +/- 7.6 mmHg). The daytime diastolic average BP of 8 patients was lower than 90 mmHg and the other's daily dose was raised to 20 mg. During the 12th-week we found optimal tension in 11 patients, while in two others there was also a significant decrease. The daily average BP was 134.7 +/- 7.5/85.6 +/- 6.6 mmHg. In comparison the data at the beginning of the study here was significant decrease in the 24-hour, daytime and night-time BP, in the hypertension time-index and the hyperbaric impact, both in systolic and diastolic levels. During the 12th-week period the diurnal index was unchanged. The early morning BP decreased by the end of the 3rd month from 148.6 +/- 14.1/98.5 +/- 11.7 mmHg to 135.2 +/- 13.5/93.4 +/- 11.2 mmHg. Sustained side-effect did not occur. The patient's compliance to benazepril was excellent. Authors conclude that benazepril monotherapy lowered in 92.8%, and normalized in 78.5% the blood pressure of patients suffering from mild to moderate essential hypertension. The unchanged diurnal index, and the decrease in the early morning blood pressure suggest the 24-hour effect of benazepril.     

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.     

Amplified amplitudes of circadian rhythms and nighttime hypotension in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: improvement by inopamil but not by melatonin

Fatigue is an important symptom of a disturbed circadian rhythm. To date, no studies of circadian rhythms in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) have been published. The objectives of the study were to study rhythms of heart rate and systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome compared with age-matched normotensive controls and to study the effects of melatonin and inopamil on such rhythms. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) measurements (Space Lab, Inc, validated) of 18 patients with CFS were made according to the 1987 U.S. Center for Disease Control Criteria, and measurements of 12 age-matched normotensive controls were used in a cosinor analysis of the two groups. The effects of melatonin and inopamil on ABP were studied subsequently in four patients in an 8-week open-label evaluation. One patient was hypertensive (diastolic blood pressure > 90 mm Hg at least once every 4 hours), and was, therefore, excluded. The data of the remaining 17 patients (15 women, 2 men) revealed a significant 12-hour rhythm in heart rate and 24-hour rhythm in systolic and diastolic blood pressure with 95% confidence intervals not significantly different from sinusoidal patterns. Although these rhythms were synchronous with the control group rhythms, their amplitudes were not and showed, respectively, 2.8, 2.8, and 9.0 times the size of the control group rhythms (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.0001, respectively). Systolic blood pressures in the patients with CFS were consistently below 100 mm Hg during the nighttime. In a subsequent pilot study of four patients from the study population treated with melatonin 4 mg daily and inopamil 200 mg daily for 4 weeks, inopamil reduced nighttime hypotension (p < 0.05), whereas melatonin increased nighttime hypotension (p < 0.02). Patients with CFS have increased amplitudes of circadian rhythms and systolic blood pressures consistently below 100 mm Hg during the nighttime. Positive inotropic compounds may be beneficial in such patients, but melatonin may not be.     

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.     

Changes in circadian rhythm of blood pressure in on-call pediatric residents

To provide an objective measure of the effects of on-call stress on the blood pressure (BP) of a group of pediatric residents, we used a SpaceLabs Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitor (ABPM) to compare 37 pediatric residents' on- and off-call BPs. Residents wore the ABPM for 24 h (once on call and again off call) to assess systolic and diastolic BPs every 30 min during the day and hourly overnight. We found significantly higher MESOR (an acronym for midline estimating statistic of rhythm, which yields a mean value more representative of the true mean than an average of a series of measurements) BPs and BP loads (%BP readings > 135 mm Hg for systolic and/or 85 mm Hg diastolic) during the on-call period. Some residents became hypertensive on call, and the normal 24-h pattern of lower nighttime blood pressures was altered during this period. ABPM monitoring may prove useful in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to reduce the stress of residency training.     

A series of self-measurements by the patient is a reliable alternative to ambulatory blood pressure measurement

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported overdiagnosis and overtreatment of hypertensive patients, especially in borderline hypertensives. AIM: To find a blood pressure measurement procedure that reduces the risk of misclassification to an acceptable level. METHOD: Comparative, prospective study over seven months of primary care patients with elevated initial blood pressures. Blood pressure measurements made by general practitioners (GPs), practice nurses, and patients were compared with ambulatory blood pressure measurements. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients completed the study. Mean differences (systolic blood pressure) between different measurement procedures and ambulatory measurement ranged from +10 mmHg (doctor) to -1 mmHg (patient), and (diastolic) from +4 mmHg (doctor) to -2 mmHg (patient). Standard deviations of mean differences ranged from 12 mmHg (doctor/systolic) to 10 mmHg (patient/systolic), and from 8 mmHg (doctor/diastolic) to 7 mmHg (patient/diastolic). CONCLUSION: Self-measurements by the patient appear to be a reliable alternative to ambulatory blood pressure measurement. In diagnosing and managing mild hypertension, we recommend the use of a valid self-measuring device.     

Relationship between mechanical properties of the carotid artery wall and baroreflex function in acutely treated hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between the mechanical properties of the carotid artery wall and baroreflex function after acute reduction of blood pressure with lacidipine in essential hypertension. DESIGN: After 15 days of placebo washout, the hypertensive patients underwent a single-blind haemodynamic study before and 90 min after administration of 4 mg lacidipine (a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist). METHODS: Brachial intra-arterial blood pressure was recorded in eight mild-to-moderate essential hypertensive patients aged 40-53 years (mean +/- SEM 46.8 +/- 4.7 years). The carotid pulse diameter was recorded simultaneously by an echo-tracking technique. The mechanical properties of the carotid artery wall were evaluated by calculating Peterson's incremental elastic modulus (Ep) both as an averaged value of 10 heart cycles with stable blood pressure and was the dynamic correlation, on a beat-to-beat basis, of Ep and the systolic blood pressure during a 20 mmHg increase in blood pressure following a bolus injection of phenylephrine. The elastic properties of the carotid artery were investigated further by determining the correlation between the systolic pressure and systolic diameter, beat by beat, during a ramped increase of blood pressure after phenylephrine administration. The baroreceptor reflex sensitivity was measured simultaneously by the Oxford method and by correlating Ep and the electrocardiographic R-R' interval on a beat-to-beat basis during phenylephrine injections. RESULTS: After lacidipine administration Peterson's elastic modulus, measured under resting steady-state conditions, was reduced (18.7 +/- 7.4 versus 16.4 +/- 6 x 10(5) dyne/cm2), whereas the baroreflex sensitivity was unchanged (6.6 +/- 3.3 versus 6.3 +/- 0.2 ms/mmHg) and resetting of the baroreflex had occurred. At the same time, the correlations between the systolic blood pressure and Ep and between the systolic blood pressure and carotid systolic diameter over a 20 mmHg increase in blood pressure were unchanged. Moreover, the correlations between the systolic blood pressure and the R-R' interval and between Ep and R-R' interval during the phenylephrine-induced blood pressure increase did not differ statistically. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the resetting of the baroreflex after the acute reduction in blood pressure caused by lacidipine is dissociated from mechanical changes in the carotid artery wall.     

Continuous ambulatory measurement of blood pressure in children--personal experience

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) during normal daily activities and during night, when the patient is asleep, is a new method of measuring blood pressure (BP) in children, used for better diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. Compared to casual BP measurements, it documents normal daily BP variations, BP during sleep, the influence of emotional and physical stress on BP and is a better predictor of hypertension associated with end-organ damage. However, the experience in ABPM in children is still limited. In our country ABPM has been used since recently, and first results are referred to children with end-stage renal failure. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: ABPM was performed in two groups of children: group A consisted of 61 children, aged 14.3 +/- 2.9 (mean +/- SD) yrs in whom intermittent outpatient BP measurements (for at least 3 months) suggested the diagnosis of hypertension (according to the data of Second Task Force); group B consisted of 52 patients (pts), aged 12.8 +/- 4.6 yr with renal disease. Four pts from group A (6.6%) and 20 pts from group B (38.5%) received antihypertensive therapy (captopril, nifedipine, furosemide and propranolol ). All children from group A and half of the children from group B had normal renal function. Eighteen pts from group B were on chronic haemodialysis (34.6%). Blood pressure was recorded during a 24-hour period except in haemodialyzed pts (48 h) (Table 1). Results of BP measurements are presented as the mean values of BP during a 24-hour period, during normal daily activities and during sleep. We used the age- and gender-appropriate 95th percentile from the Task Force Study as the daytime upper-limit of normal and 10% lower for the upper-limit at night. According to BP load (the percentage of BPs exceeding the upper limits of normal for age), children were assumed to have mild-to-moderate hypertension (BP load between 20% and 40%) or severe hypertension (BP load more than 40%). The success of antihypertensive therapy was evaluated after 1-3 months in 11 pts (twice in 10 pts and three times in one pt). RESULTS: In group A 39.4% of pts were normotensive and 36.1% were without antihypertensive therapy, 58.4% of normotensive and 40.5% of hypertensive pts had blunted circadian BP rhythm (nocturnal BP reduction of less than 10% of diurnal values) (Graph. 1). In group B 38.5% of pts were normotensive and 27% were without antihypertensive therapy. In the group of normotensive pts alteration of circadian BP rhythm was found in 40% of pts with normal renal function, 80% of pts with chronic renal failure and in 100% of pts with terminal renal failure, while in the hypertensive group, altered circadian BP rhythm had 68%, 100% and 92% of pts, respectively (Graph 2). Mild-to-moderate hypertension had 54% of hypertensive pts from group A and 37.5% of hypertensive pts from group B. Severe hypertension was more frequent in group B (62.5%) comparing to group A (46%). The effectiveness of antihypertensive therapy was assessed in 11 pts. In 69.2% of pts BP became normal or was significantly decreased, in 23.1% of pts BP was not changed and 7.7% of pts had higher values of BP. DISCUSSION: ABPM is very useful for diagnosing white coat hypertension. Like other authors, we have pointed out that more than one third of pts who were hypertensive according to usual BP measurements had normal 24-hour BP and we classified them as white coat hypertensives. More than a half of the pts had blunted circadian BP rhythm, and as it is not certain whether they will become hypertensive in adulthood they should be periodically controlled. There are several proofs that results of ABPM have a better correlation with hypertensive end-organ damage; therefore ABPM is used for assessing the severity of hypertension. In our former work, we showed excellent correlation of BP with left ventricular mass index in children with end-stage renal failure. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)     

Acrophase amplitude of ambulatory blood pressure decreases in migraineurs

Ambulatory blood pressure was recorded and analyzed in 13 migraineurs during headache-free periods and in 11 healthy subjects. Systolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, and pulse rate were recorded for 48 hours (three times every hour from 6 AM to mid-night, once an hour at night). Circadian variation of blood pressure was analyzed using single cosinor analysis and group mean cosinor analysis methods. Single cosinor analysis identified significant circadian rhythm of systolic blood pressure in 10 of 11 control subjects (90.9%) and 5 of 13 migraineurs (38.5%, P < 0.02 versus controls, Fisher's exact test). Incidences of significant circadian rhythm of mean blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were 100% and 100% in controls, 46.2% and 53.8% in the migraineurs (P < 0.01, P < 0.02 versus controls). Incidences of significant rhythm of pulse pressure were 36.3% in controls and 38.5% in the migraine group (difference was not significant). Group mean cosinor analysis identified significant circadian rhythm in both the migraine group and the controls. The MESOR (midline estimating statistic of rhythm) values of systolic, mean, and diastolic blood pressures showed no significant differences between the migraine group and the controls. Acrophase amplitudes of systolic, mean, and diastolic blood pressure were 4.2, 5.2, and 5.9 mm Hg in the migraine group, respectively; and 7.2, 7.3, and 7.5 mm Hg in the controls, respectively. These amplitudes of systolic, mean, and diastolic blood pressures in the migraine group were significantly smaller than those in the controls. These data suggest that some migraineurs lose or alter their circadian blood pressure rhythm. Evaluating migraineurs as a group, significant circadian rhythm of blood pressure can be identified and oscillation amplitudes of blood pressures are decreased. The present results suggest that migraineurs may be subject to dysfunction of the circadian rhythm generator and the autonomic nervous system. Possible involvement of serotonergic projections from the raphe to the suprachiasmatic nuclei of the hypothalamus in migraine is discussed.     

Low-dose antihypertensive therapy with 1.5 mg sustained-release indapamide: results of randomised double-blind controlled studies. European study group

OBJECTIVE: In accordance with international recommendations on the need to decrease doses of antihypertensive drugs, a low-dose (1.5 mg) sustained-release (SR) formulation of indapamide was developed to optimize the drug's efficacy : safety ratio. The aim of this work was to evaluate the benefit of a low-dose diuretic by consolidating the efficacy and safety results of two clinical trials with a similar design. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical data were obtained in two European randomized double-blind studies with 690 mild to moderate hypertensive patients (95 mmHg < or = supine diastolic blood pressure < or = 114 mmHg using a mercury sphygmomanometer) treated respectively for 2 and 3 months, with a mean age of 53 and 57 years, 44 and 57% males, mean supine diastolic blood pressure of 100.6 and 102.5 mmHg and mean supine systolic blood pressure of 161.0 and 164.5 mmHg. RESULTS: The first study, a dose-finding study with indapamide SR at 1.5, 2 and 2.5 mg versus placebo and the immediate-release (IR) formulation of indapamide, showed that the 1.5 mg dosage of the new indapamide formulation had an improved antihypertensive efficacy : safety ratio. The second study confirmed the equivalence of blood pressure reductions with 1.5 mg indapamide SR and 2.5 mg indapamide IR, and better acceptability with 1.5 mg indapamide SR, particularly in the number of patients with serum potassium levels < 3.4 mmol/l, which was reduced by more than 50%. The long-term efficacy of 1.5 mg indapamide SR was observed through a 9-month open-treatment follow-up to the second study. CONCLUSION: The 1.5 mg SR formulation of indapamide has an improved antihypertensive efficacy : safety ratio, which is in accordance with international recommendations for the use of low-dose antihypertensive drugs and diuretics in first-line therapy of hypertension.     

The impact of ibuprofen on the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment with hydrochlorothiazide in elderly persons

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may alter blood pressure through their inhibitory effects on prostaglandin biosynthesis. Such potential hypertensive effects of NSAIDs have not been adequately examined in the elderly, who are the largest group of NSAID users. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, two-period crossover trial of ibuprofen (1800 mg per day) vs placebo treatment in patients older than 60 years of age with hypertension controlled with hydrochlorothiazide. While continuing their usual thiazide dosage, subjects were randomized to a 4-week treatment period (ibuprofen or placebo) followed by a 2-week placebo wash-out period and a second 4-week treatment period with the alternative therapy. Supine and standing systolic and diastolic blood pressures were measured weekly. RESULTS: Of 25 randomized subjects, 22 completed the study protocol (mean age = 73 +/- 6.7 years). Supine systolic blood pressure and standing systolic blood pressure were increased significantly with ibuprofen treatment, compared with placebo. Mean supine systolic blood pressures were 143.8 +/- 21.0 and 139.6 +/- 15.9 mmHg on ibuprofen and placebo, respectively (p = .004). Mean standing systolic blood pressures were 148.1 +/- 19.9 and 143.4 +/- 17.9 mmHg on ibuprofen and placebo, respectively (p = .002). CONCLUSION: We conclude that 1800 mg per day of ibuprofen does induce a significant increase in systolic blood pressure in older hypertensive patients treated with hydrochlorothiazide. NSAID therapy may negatively impact the control of hypertension in elderly patients.     

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.     

Barnidipine, a novel calcium antagonist for once-daily treatment of hypertension: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study. Dutch Barnidipine Multicenter Study Group

The antihypertensive effects and tolerance of once-daily barnidipine, a novel dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, were evaluated. A total of 190 patients with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 95-114 mmHg were investigated in this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study. After a 4-week single-blind placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to placebo or barnidipine (10 mg, 20 mg, or 30 mg modified release capsules) once daily for 6 weeks. Nonresponders (sitting DBP > or =90 mmHg and a decrease of < 10 mmHg) were treated for an additional 6 weeks with a dose increase of 10 mg. At each clinic visit, sitting and standing blood pressure and heart rate were measured approximately 24 hours after the last dose of study drug was taken. Compared with placebo, barnidipine lowered blood pressure, with a trend toward a dose-response relationship over the dose range 10-30 mg. A dose increment of 10 mg in nonresponders resulted in additional reductions in blood pressure. At the end of the active treatment period, the responder rates were 41% and 57% for 10 mg and 20 mg barnidipine, respectively. Heart rate in both sitting and standing positions was not affected by barnidipine. Treatment with barnidipine was well tolerated, and the incidence of adverse events was dose related and consistent with vasodilatation. In conclusion, barnidipine (10-30 mg) administered once daily is well tolerated and reduces blood pressure in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

Heart rate and blood pressure variabilities in mild to moderate hypertensive patients with or without left ventricular hypertrophy

AIM OF THE STUDY: To compare heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) variability in hypertensives with or without left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). METHODS: Thirty-three mild to moderate hypertensive patients, mean age 45 +/- 15 years, underwent an echocardiogram, a 24 hr ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), a 24 hr ECG monitoring and a continuous BP recording over 15 minutes both in supine and standing positions, by using digital plethysmography (Finapres device). Statistical analysis: non parametric tests. RESULTS: [table: see text] CONCLUSION: LVH is associated with a reduction in the markers of sympathetic activity and a decreased baroreflex sensitivity.     

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.     

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.     

Efficient serum-free retroviral gene transfer into primitive human hematopoietic progenitor cells by a defined, high-titer, nonconcentrated vector-containing medium

BACKGROUND: Home training in self-lowering of blood pressure using continuous blood pressure feedback has not previously been reported. Enhancement of laboratory-learned skills was hypothesized on the basis of outcomes from other intellectual, emotional and physical endeavours. OBJECTIVE: To examine the supplementary effect of home blood pressure biofeedback training. DESIGN: Thirty unmedicated, mild hypertensives participated in a randomized, double-blinded, modified contingency placebo-controlled study. METHOD: After suitable screening and baseline blood pressure measurements subjects undertook eight laboratory biofeedback sessions and then 12 home training sessions over 4 weeks using continuous finger blood pressure monitoring. RESULTS: In the laboratory those being administered active therapy (n=16) lowered systolic pressures by 5 +/- 5.4 mmHg compared with a lowering of 4 +/- 4.2 mmHg with placebo (NS). During the fourth week at home lowering for the active group (11 +/- 8 mmHg) was greater than that with placebo (4 +/- 6.2 mmHg, P=0.017). Arm-cuff blood pressures were not statistically different for groups and with time but that of the active group was lower by 9 +/- 15.4/7 +/- 10.2 mmHg, which is a clinically relevant change, after home biofeedback. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of self-lowering of systolic blood pressure in mild hypertensives by continuous feedback was enhanced by 6 mmHg with 4 weeks of practice at home. Standard arm-cuff blood pressure was reduced by a clinically relevant amount. The home environment proved cost effective for this 'high-tech' approach.     

Effect of the treatment with amlodipine on left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is one of the physiopathological effects of hypertension and one of the main risk factors for sudden death, myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure. Drugs to treat hypertension must not only reduce blood pressure, but also modify the facts which lead to ventricular hypertrophy. This study has been designed to assess the effect of amlodipine, a calcium-antagonist, on LVH in hypertensive patients. METHODS: 20 hypertensive patients (mild to moderate, both sexes, mean age 45.0 yr) were included in a single-blind study. After an initial, four weeks placebo period, active treatment was given (amlodipine 5 mg a day). Dose titration was made after 4-8 weeks to 10 mg a day if necessary and continued until the end of the study. Systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), as well as pulse rate (PR) and adverse events were recorded at every visit. Blood and urine analysis, catecholamine, plasmatic renin activity and Mode M echocardiography were made at the beginning and the end of the study. RESULTS: Only one patient was excluded. SBP and DBP showed a significantly fall (p < 0.001). In 80% of patients DBP fell under 90 mm Hg. Every echocardiographic parameter, but left ventricular diastolic dimension, showed significantly reductions at the end of the study: septum thickness (p = 0.001), posterior wall thickness (p = 0.001), left ventricular systolic dimension (p = 0.014), wall relative thickness (p = 0.015), shortening fraction (p = 0.009), left ventricular mass (p = 0.001) and corrected left ventricular mass (p = 0.001). Blood parameters did not modify. CONCLUSIONS: Amlodipine has a beneficial effect on LVH and also is an effective and safe drug to treat mild to moderate hypertension.