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.     

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.     

Ultrastructural immunolocalization of bone sialoprotein in guinea-pig osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of mibefradil and amlodipine in patients with uncomplicated mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomised, parallel group multicentre trial. METHODS: 239 patients received 50 mg mibefradil or 5 mg amlodipine for 4 weeks, followed by a forced titration to 100 mg mibefradil or 10 mg amlodipine for an additional 8 weeks. Patients then entered a 4-week withdrawal period either on therapy or switched to placebo. RESULTS: Statistically equivalent reductions in trough sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) were observed after 12 weeks of once-daily treatment with 50/100 mg mibefradil (-11.5 +/- 8.2 mm Hg) and 5/10 mg amlodipine (-13.2 +/- 7.9 mm Hg). The number of patients with normalised SDBP (< or = 90 mm Hg) increased 23.3% in the mibefradil group and 19.5% in the amlodipine group (approximately 74% in both groups). Patients on mibefradil or amlodipine during the withdrawal period had significantly larger decreases in SDBP than those on placebo. Patients on mibefradil had a decrease in heart rate of 5.5 bpm. Patients on amlodipine had no change in heart rate; however, cessation of amlodipine was associated with a decrease in heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: Mibefradil was as effective as amlodipine in reducing BP; both compounds were effective treatments of hypertension.     

An elective-titration study of the comparative effectiveness of two angiotensin II-receptor blockers, irbesartan and losartan. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators

This multicenter, randomized, double-masked, elective-titration study was designed to compare the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of irbesartan and losartan, two angiotensin II subtype AT1-receptor blockers, in the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After a 3-week, single-masked, placebo lead-in period, 432 patients with a mean seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) of 95 to 115 mm Hg were randomly allocated to receive either irbesartan 150 mg once daily (n = 213) or losartan 50 mg once daily (n = 219). At week 4, if SeDBP at trough (i.e., 24 +/- 3 hours after the previous dose) was > or = 90 mm Hg, the daily dose was doubled (to irbesartan 300 mg or losartan 100 mg). At week 8, if trough SeDBP was > or = 90 mm Hg, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg once daily was added to the regimen; consistent with the prescribing information for losartan, the dose of losartan was reduced to 50 mg once daily on the addition of hydrochlorothiazide. A total of 370 patients (178 irbesartan and 192 losartan) were evaluable for efficacy. The mean change in trough SeDBP at week 8, the primary efficacy end point, was significantly greater in patients receiving irbesartan monotherapy than in those receiving losartan monotherapy (-10.2 mm Hg vs -7.9 mm Hg, respectively). At week 12, reductions in trough SeDBP and seated systolic blood pressure were greater with irbesartan treatment than with losartan treatment (-13.8 mm Hg vs -10.8 mm Hg and -18.0 mm Hg vs -13.9 mm Hg, respectively), and a greater proportion of irbesartan patients responded to therapy (i.e., trough SeDBP < 90 mm Hg or reduction in trough SeDBP > or = 10 mm Hg) compared with losartan patients (78% vs 64%, respectively). Both regimens were well tolerated.     

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.     

Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of a sustained-release diltiazem formulation (Mono-Tildiem LP 300 MG) after repeated administration in healthy volunteers

The usual dosage regimen of diltiazem (Tildiem) is 60 mg 3-4 times a day. A sustained-release formulation has been developed (Mono-Tildiem LP 300 mg) in order to allow a single daily administration. Two repeated dosing studies were performed in healthy volunteers. The absolute bioavailability of sustained-release diltiazem LP 300 mg was investigated using concomitant i.v. administration of 13C-labelled drug: absolute bioavailability of the "once a day" formulation was 35%. The second study compared sustained-release diltiazem LP 300 mg with the standard formulation of diltiazem. The results showed that the diltiazem plasma concentrations obtained after the LP formulation remained stable between 2 and 14 h after administration and were compatible with a once a day administration. Relative bioavailability of sustained-release diltiazem LP 300 mg was 79.3% compared with diltiazem. Therefore, a unitary dose of sustained-release diltiazem LP 300 mg was chosen as the dose equivalent to the daily dose administered with the standard diltiazem formulation.     

A second phase III multicenter placebo controlled study of 2 dosages of modified release tamsulosin in patients with symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. United States 93-01 Study Group

PURPOSE: In a double-blind, phase III clinical trial we evaluate the safety and efficacy of 0.4 and 0.8 mg. tamsulosin daily for the treatment of patients with symptoms of moderate to severe benign prostatic hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients meeting the basic requirements of the study underwent a 4-week single-blind placebo evaluation period. A total of 735 patients were randomized to double-blind therapy with tamsulosin or placebo. Treatment duration was 13 weeks. Efficacy and safety were evaluated at 5 visits during the double-blind treatment period. RESULTS: When efficacy data between baseline and end point were compared there was a significant reduction in total American Urological Association symptom score (25%) in each tamsulosin group compared with placebo (p = 0.01) and the percentage of patients with a 30% or more reduction in peak urinary flow rate was significantly greater in the tamsulosin versus placebo group (p <0.05). Improvements in American Urological Association symptom scores and maximum flow rate occurred at 1 week of treatment. None of the patients experienced a first dose effect. There were no significant changes in blood pressure on standing at any visit during the study except for a decrease in systolic blood pressure of 20 mm. Hg or more between the 0.8 mg. dose and placebo groups at visit 4 (p = 0.036). Positive orthostatic tests were significantly more frequent in the 0.8 mg. group compared with placebo at visit 4 (p = 0.012). The treatment groups did not differ significantly in incidence of electrocardiogram abnormalities at each post-baseline visit and at end point. CONCLUSIONS: Tamsulosin was safe and effective, and clinically and statistically superior to placebo in relieving symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia in men with moderate to severe symptoms at baseline. There was no evidence of a first dose effect and no clinically significant orthostatic hypertension. In addition, response to treatment was rapid.     

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.     

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.     

Inadequate management of blood pressure in a hypertensive population

BACKGROUND: Many patients with hypertension have inadequate control of their blood pressure. Improving the treatment of hypertension requires an understanding of the ways in which physicians manage this condition and a means of assessing the efficacy of this care. METHODS: We examined the care of 800 hypertensive men at five Department of Veterans Affairs sites in New England over a two-year period. Their mean (+/-SD) age was 65.5+/-9.1 years, and the average duration of hypertension was 12.6+/-5.3 years. We used recursive partitioning to assess the probability that antihypertensive therapy would be increased at a given clinic visit using several variables. We then used these predictions to define the intensity of treatment for each patient during the study period, and we examined the associations between the intensity of treatment and the degree of control of blood pressure. RESULTS: Approximately 40 percent of the patients had a blood pressure of > or =160/90 mm Hg despite an average of more than six hypertension-related visits per year. Increases in therapy occurred during 6.7 percent of visits. Characteristics associated with an increase in antihypertensive therapy included increased levels of both systolic and diastolic blood pressure at that visit (but not previous visits), a previous change in therapy, the presence of coronary artery disease, and a scheduled visit. Patients who had more intensive therapy had significantly (P<0.01) better control of blood pressure. During the two-year period, systolic blood pressure declined by 6.3 mm Hg among patients with the most intensive treatment, but increased by 4.8 mm Hg among the patients with the least intensive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In a selected population of older men, blood pressure was poorly controlled in many. Those who received more intensive medical therapy had better control. Many physicians are not aggressive enough in their approach to hypertension.     

Amlodipine, felodipine, and isradipine in the treatment of Chinese patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension

Optimal treatment of hypertension requires the use of effective antihypertensive drugs. Calcium channel blockers are widely used in the treatment of hypertension and appear to be particularly efficacious in ethnic Chinese patients. The aim of this open-label study was to prospectively investigate the efficacy and tolerability of three dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers in sequence, using the same protocol for each. After 2 weeks of placebo treatment, 73 males and 45 females (mean age, 45 +/- 10 years; mean weight, 67 +/- 10 kg) with essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure, 95 to 115 mm Hg) were treated with amlodipine (n = 41), felodipine (n = 38), or isradipine (n = 39) for 8 weeks, with dose titration after 4 weeks. Mean seated systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased by 23/17, 30/17, and 20/15 mm Hg after 8 weeks of treatment with amlodipine, felodipine, and isradipine, respectively. These reductions were all statistically significant. Blood pressure was controlled (defined as diastolic pressure < 90 mm Hg at the final visit or a decrease from baseline of > or = 10 mm Hg) in 85%, 74%, and 74% of patients receiving amlodipine, felodipine, and isradipine, respectively. There were no significant changes in heart rate, plasma lipid levels, or serum biochemistry markers with any of the three treatments. No serious adverse events occurred, but mild adverse effects, including headaches, flushing, tachycardia, dizziness, and edema, were reported; 1 (2%), 6 (16%), and 5 (13%) patients receiving amlodipine, felodipine, and isradipine, respectively, withdrew from the study (P < 0.05). The results of this study indicate that all three drugs are highly effective in lowering blood pressure and are well tolerated in Chinese patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.     

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.     

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.     

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, 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.     

Effects of benazepril on stress testing blood pressure in essential hypertension

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

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.     

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.     

Randomised trial of octreotide for long term management of cirrhosis after variceal haemorrhage

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of long term octreotide as adjuvant treatment to programmed endoscopic sclerotherapy after acute variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic portal hypertension. DESIGN: Randomised clinical trial. SETTING: University hospital. SUBJECTS: 32 patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension. INTERVENTIONS: Programmed injection sclerotherapy with subcutaneous octreotide 50 micrograms twice daily for 6 months, or programmed injection sclerotherapy alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Episodes of recurrent variceal bleeding and survival. RESULTS: Significantly fewer patients receiving combined octreotide and sclerotherapy had episodes of recurrent variceal bleeding compared with patients given sclerotherapy alone (1/16 v 7/16; P = 0.037, Fisher's exact test), and their survival was significantly improved (P < 0.02, log rank test); this improvement was maintained for 12 months after the end of the study. Combined treatment also resulted in a sustained decrease in portal pressure (median decrease -6.0 mm Hg, interquartile range -10 to -4.75 mm Hg, P = 0.0002) compared with sclerotherapy alone (median increase 1.5 mm Hg, interquartile range 0.25 to 3.25 mm Hg), as well as a significant improvement in liver function as assessed by plasma concentrations of bilirubin, albumin, and alanine aminotransferase and by hepatocyte metabolism of aminopyrine labelled with carbon-14. CONCLUSION: Long term octreotide may be a valuable adjuvant to endoscopic sclerotherapy for acute variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic portal hypertension.