Relation between dose of bendrofluazide,antihypertensive effect,and adverse biochemical effects.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the relevant dose of bendrofluazide for treating mild to moderate hypertension. DESIGN--Double blind parallel group trial of patients who were given placebo for six weeks and then randomly allocated to various doses of bendrofluazide (1.25, 2.5, 5, or 10 mg daily) or placebo for 12 weeks. SETTING--General practices in Zealand, Denmark. PATIENTS--257 Patients with newly diagnosed or previously treated hypertension, aged 25-70, who had a mean diastolic blood pressure of 100-120 mm Hg after receiving placebo for six weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Reduction in diastolic blood pressure and changes in biochemical variables (potassium, urate, glucose, fructosamine, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein A I, apolipoprotein B, and triglyceride concentrations). RESULTS--All doses of bendrofluazide significantly reduced diastolic blood pressure to the same degree (10-11 mm Hg). Clear relations between dose and effect were shown for potassium, urate, glucose, total cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B concentrations. The 1.25 mg dose increased only urate concentrations, whereas the 10 mg dose affected all the above biochemical variables. CONCLUSION--The relevant range of doses of bendrofluazide to treat mild to moderate hypertension is 1.25-2.5 mg a day. Higher doses caused more pronounced adverse biochemical effects including adverse lipid effects. Previous trials with bendrofluazide have used too high doses.     

Long term reduction in sodium balance: possible additional mechanism whereby nifedipine lowers blood pressure.

OBJECTIVE--To assess the changes in sodium excretion and sodium balance after withdrawal of long term nifedipine. DESIGN--Single blind, placebo controlled study in patients receiving fixed sodium and potassium intakes. SETTING--Blood pressure unit of a teaching hospital in south London. PATIENTS--Eight patients with mild to moderate uncomplicated essential hypertension who had been taking nifedipine 20 mg twice daily for at least six weeks. INTERVENTIONS--Withdrawal of nifedipine and replacement with matching placebo for one week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Urinary sodium excretion and cumulative sodium balance, body weight, plasma atrial natriuretic peptide concentrations, plasma renin activity and aldosterone concentrations, and blood pressure. RESULTS--During nifedipine withdrawal there was a significant reduction in urinary sodium excretion (day 1: -62.7 mmol/24 h; 95% confidence interval -90.3 to -35.0) and each patient retained a mean of 146 (SEM 26) mmol sodium over the week of replacement with placebo. Body weight and plasma atrial natriuretic peptide concentrations increased during the placebo period and seemed to be associated with the amount of sodium retained. Systolic blood pressure rose from 157 (9) to 165 (9) mmHg (95% confidence interval of difference -7.1 to 22.1) when nifedipine was replaced with matching placebo, and the rise seemed to be related to the amount of sodium that was retained. CONCLUSIONS--Nifedipine causes a long term reduction in sodium balance in patients with essential hypertension. This long term effect may contribute to the mechanism whereby nifedipine lowers blood pressure.     

Treating hypertension in black compared with white non-insulin dependent diabetics: a double blind trial of verapamil and metoprolol.

STUDY OBJECTIVE--To compare responses of blood pressure to the calcium antagonist verapamil and the beta blocker metoprolol in black compared with white diabetics with hypertension and to monitor urinary albumin excretion in relation to fall in blood pressure. DESIGN--Double blind, placebo controlled, random order crossover trial with four week placebo run in period and two six week active phases separated by a two week placebo washout period. SETTING--Outpatient department of a general hospital in a multiethnic health department. Patients--Diabetic patients with hypertension. Four dropped out before randomisation; 25 black and 14 white patients completed the trial. INTERVENTIONS--Patients given slow release verapamil 120 mg or 240 mg twice daily with placebo or metoprolol 50 mg or 100 mg twice daily with placebo. Treatment for diabetes (diet alone or with oral hypoglycaemic drugs) remained unchanged. END POINT--Comparison of changes in blood pressure in the two groups taking both drugs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS--Metoprolol had little effect on blood pressure in black patients (mean fall 4.0 mm Hg systolic (95% confidence interval -2.5 to 10.4 mm Hg), 4.3 mm Hg diastolic (-0.8 to 9.5)) but more effect in white patients (mean falls 13.4 mm Hg (0.1 to 26.7) and 10.6 mm Hg (4.5 to 16.7) respectively). Verapamil was more effective in both groups, with mean falls of 8.8 mm Hg (2.4 to 15.0) and 8.1 mm Hg (5.0 to 11.2) in black patients and 19.1 mm Hg (5.4 to 32.9) and 11.4 mm Hg (0.9 to 22.0) in white patients. Heart fate fell significantly in black patients taking metoprolol, which suggested compliance with treatment. Metabolic variables were unaltered by either treatment. Plasma renin activity was low in both groups after metoprolol treatment, but change in blood pressure could not be predicted from baseline plasma renin activity. Urinary albumin:creatinine ratio was independently related to baseline blood pressure but not significantly changed by treatment. CONCLUSIONS--beta Blockers alone are not effective in treating hypertension in black diabetics. Verapamil is effective but less so than in white patients. As yet no ideal monotherapy exists for hypertension in black patients.     

Effect on intra-arterial blood pressure of slow release metoprolol combined with placebo or chlorthalidone.

Thirty patients with essential hypertension participated in a double blind crossover trial in which they were randomly allocated to treatment with either once daily slow release metoprolol (200 mg) with placebo or once daily slow release metoprolol (200 mg) with chlorthalidone (25 mg). Ambulatory intra-arterial blood pressure was recorded continuously for 24-48 hours before treatment and two months after each change in regimen. The response of blood pressure and pulse rate to a standard exercise protocol that included supine rest and tilt, isometric, and dynamic bicycle exercise was measured during the same recording periods. Both treatments appreciably reduced blood pressure and pulse rate; mean daytime intra-arterial blood pressure was reduced from 174/95 mm Hg to 158/85 mm Hg by metoprolol plus placebo and to 143/78 mm Hg by metoprolol plus chlorthalidone. This reduction with the combined treatment was significantly greater than with metoprolol and placebo (p systolic = 0.001, p diastolic = 0.004). Mean night time pressures were reduced from 148/78 mm Hg to 139/75 mm Hg by metoprolol plus placebo and to 116/61 mm Hg by metoprolol plus chlorthalidone. Again the reduction in blood pressure was significantly greater with combined treatment (p less than 0.001) than with metoprolol plus placebo. Once daily slow release metoprolol is effective in controlling blood pressure, but this effect is greatly enhanced by the addition of a diuretic.     

Atenolol in essential hypertension during pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the effect of atenolol on the outcome of pregnancy in women with essential hypertension. DESIGN--Prospective, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study. SETTING--Hospital clinic. PATIENTS--33 Women with mild essential hypertension (systolic blood pressure 140-170 mm Hg or diastolic pressure 90-110 mm Hg on two occasions at least 24 hours apart) consecutively referred to two obstetric medical clinics. Four patients in the placebo group were withdrawn from the study: control of blood pressure was inadequate in two, one developed breathlessness, and one changed her mind about participating. The mean gestation in the 29 remaining women on entry to the study was 15.9 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Blood pressure and birth weight. INTERVENTION--14 Women received placebo. 15 Women received atenolol 50 mg daily initially, increasing until either the blood pressure was less than 140/90 mm Hg or a dose of 200 micrograms daily was reached. RESULTS--The mean blood pressure on entry was 148/86 mm Hg in the group given atenolol and 144/86 mm Hg in the group given placebo. During treatment the mean diastolic pressure was significantly reduced by atenolol compared with placebo (to 74 v 81 mm Hg; difference in means (95% confidence interval) 7.0 (2.9 to 10.0) mm Hg) but the effect on systolic pressure was marginal (132 v 136 mm Hg; 4.0 (-1.4 to 8.6) mm Hg). Babies in the atenolol group had a significantly lower birth weight than those in the placebo group (2620 g v 3530 g; 910 (440 to 1380)g). CONCLUSION--Atenolol given from the end of the first trimester in patients with mild hypertension is associated with intrauterine growth retardation. When taken in conjunction with the results of a previous study in which methyldopa was given these findings indicate that benefit is unlikely to result from treating mild essential hypertension in pregnancy.     

Labetalol: potent antihypertensive agent that blocks both alpha- and beta-adrenergic receptors.

Labetalol was administered as the sole antihypertensive agent to 20 ambulatory patients with mild to moderate hypertension. The mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures (+/- standard error of the mean) with the patients sitting fell significantly (P < 0.001), from 145.5 +/- 3.2 and 103.7 +/- 1.6 mm Hg respectively at the start of labetalol therapy (after a period free of antihypertensive medication) to 125.7 +/- 2.0 and 87.2 +/- 1.1 mm Hg by the end of the trial. The diastolic blood pressure was well controlled (90 mm Hg or less) with labetalol therapy in 90% of the patients. The medication was well tolerated, and no orthostatic fall in the diastolic blood pressure was observed. Pharmacologically labetalol most closely resembles a combination of a nonselective beta-adrenergic blocker like propranolol and a postsynaptic alpha-adrenergic blocker like prazosin.     

Dietary sodium restriction for mild hypertension in general practice.

Eighteen patients with stable mild hypertension (mean blood pressure 144/93 mm Hg) restricted their sodium intake for eight weeks while taking part in a double blind randomised crossover trial of slow sodium and placebo tablets. Mean 24 hour urinary sodium excretion was 143 mmol(mEq) during the period on slow sodium and 87 mmol during the period on placebo. Five patients were unable to reduce their sodium intake below 120 mmol, but the others had a mean 24 hour urinary sodium excretion of 59 mmol during the period on placebo. There was no significant difference in blood pressure between the slow sodium and placebo treatment periods, although the study had a power of 99% to detect a difference of 5 mm Hg in mean arterial pressure between the two periods. Moderate dietary sodium restriction does not lower blood pressure in patients with this degree of hypertension.     

Obesity as a determinant for response to antihypertensive treatment.

OBJECTIVE--To test the hypothesis that beta blockers lower blood pressure more effectively than calcium entry blockers in obese hypertensive patients and that calcium entry blockers are more effective in lean patients. DESIGN--Double blind, randomised controlled trial of treatment over six weeks. SETTING--Tertiary referral centre. SUBJECTS--42 white men with uncomplicated mild to moderate essential hypertension (World Health Organisation stage I or II); 36 completed the study. INTERVENTION--Patients were randomised to metoprolol 50-100 mg twice daily or isradipine 2.5-5.0 mg twice daily for six weeks after a two week run in phase. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Blood pressure after six weeks of treatment. RESULTS--When stratified according to treatment and presence of obesity (body mass index < or = 27 kg/m2), the mean (SD) fall in blood pressure in the beta blocker group was 24 (13)/18 (10) mm Hg in obese patients and 18 (19)/12 (13) mm Hg in lean patients. In the calcium entry blocker group, the fall in blood pressure was 21 (15)/17 (6) mm Hg in lean patients and 18 (11)/8 (10) mm Hg in obese patients. After taking age and blood pressure before treatment into account there was a significant interaction between obesity and drug therapy (p = 0.019) with a better diastolic blood pressure response to calcium entry blockers in lean patients and to beta blockers in obese hypertensive patients. CONCLUSION--Obesity affects the efficacy of metoprolol and isradipine in reducing blood pressure.     

Sodium restriction and blood pressure in hypertensive type II diabetics: randomised blind controlled and crossover studies of moderate sodium restriction and sodium supplementation.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the effect of moderate dietary sodium restriction on the hypertension of non-insulin-dependent (type II) diabetes. DESIGN--Randomised parallel controlled study of moderate sodium restriction for three months compared with usual diabetic diet, followed by randomised double blind crossover trial of sustained release preparation of sodium for one month versus placebo for one month in patients continuing with sodium restriction. SETTING--Patients attending diabetic outpatient clinic of city hospital. PATIENTS--Thirty four patients with established type II diabetes complicated by mild hypertension (systolic blood pressure greater than 160 mm Hg or diastolic pressure greater than 95 mm Hg on three consecutive occasions). Patients already taking antihypertensive agents (but not diuretics) not barred from study provided that criteria for mild hypertension still met. Conditions precluding patients from study were diabetic or hypertensive nephropathy, cardiac failure, and pregnancy. INTERVENTIONS--After run in phase with recordings at seven weeks, three weeks, and time zero patients were allocated at random to receive moderate dietary sodium restriction for three months (n = 17) or to continue with usual diabetic diet. Subsequently nine patients in sodium restriction group continued with regimen for a further two months, during which they completed a randomised double blind crossover trial of sustained release preparation of sodium (Slow Sodium 80 mmol daily) for one month versus matching placebo for one month. END POINT--Reduction in blood pressure in type II diabetics with mild hypertension. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS--Supine and erect blood pressure, body weight, and 24 hour urinary sodium and potassium excretion measured monthly during parallel group and double blind crossover studies. After parallel group study sodium restriction group showed significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (supine 19.2 mm Hg, erect 21.4 mm Hg; p less than 0.001) and mean daily urinary sodium excretion (mean reduction 60 mmol/24 h). There were no appreciable changes in weight, diabetic control, or diastolic pressure. No significant changes occurred in controls. In double blind crossover study mean supine systolic blood pressure rose significantly (p less than 0.005) during sodium supplementation (to 171 mm Hg) compared with value after three months of sodium restriction alone (159.9 mm Hg) and after one month of placebo (161.8 mm Hg). CONCLUSIONS--Moderate dietary restriction of sodium has a definite hypotensive effect, which may be useful in mild hypertension of type II diabetes.     

Beta blockade,diuretics, and salt restriction for the management of mild hypertension: a randomised double blind trial.

Ninety four patients with mild hypertension (average supine diastolic blood pressure (phase V) 95-110 mm Hg) were allocated at random to receive restriction of dietary sodium (maximum allowed 70 mmol(mEq)/24 h) or a normal diet. In addition, they received in random order 25 mg chlorthalidone, 200 mg metoprolol (slow release), and a fixed combination of these two drugs. Each drug treatment was given for four weeks and alternated with four weeks of placebo. Forty four patients were allocated to sodium restriction (group 1) and 50 to normal diet (group 2). The mean 24 hour urinary sodium excretion in group 1 was 74 (SD 31) mmol(mEq)/24 h, and in group 2 132 (51) mmol/24 h. Compared with the screening blood pressure the average decrement of the supine blood pressure in group 1 was 16.0/8.6 mm Hg with placebo, 21.7/11.5 mm Hg with the diuretic, 28.5/17.8 mm Hg with the beta blocker, and 28.9/18.4 mm Hg with the combined agent; in group 2 these values were 13.3/6.1, 20.3/9.7, 21.3/12.9, and 29.4/16.8 mm Hg, respectively. There was a sharp decrease of the average potassium concentration during chlorthalidone and combination treatment periods (average value 3.3 mmol(mEq)/1). These results suggest that moderate salt restriction used as sole treatment has a limited though demonstrable blood pressure lowering effect but that when it is used as an adjuvant to beta blocker treatment its value is greatly enhanced.     

Effect of nifedipine and propranolol on blood flow,venous compliance and blood pressure in essential hypertension

To determine the efficacy of nifedipine combined with propranolol in the treatment of hypertension, 23 patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled while they were receiving propranolol, 120 mg/d, entered a dose response trial of four 8-week periods while continuing propranolol therapy. Therapy during the four periods consisted respectively of a placebo, 30 mg/d of nifedipine, 30 or 60 mg/d of nifedipine, and 30 or 60 mg/d of nifedipine along with only 60 mg/d of propranolol. Studies of forearm blood flow and venous compliance were carried out in nine of the patients. Ten patients dropped out after the first period. The mean blood pressures while the patients were recumbent after the first, second and third periods were 163 ± 17/100 ± 6, 147 ± 13/89 ± 10 and 141 ± 19/84 ± 10 mm Hg respectively. There was no evidence of tolerance in the four patients who received 30 mg/d of nifedipine during the third period. There was a significant dose-diastolic pressure response (p < 0.0006) without a change in heart rate in the eight who received 60 mg/d of nifedipine during this period. After 16 weeks of therapy with nifedipine 11 patients had a diastolic pressure less than 90 mm Hg while recumbent. While mean blood pressure and heart rate for the group were not significantly increased at the end of the fourth period, in three of the patients the diastolic pressure while recumbent increased to over 90 mm Hg. This suggests that 120 mg/d of propranolol is the minimum dose required for concomitant therapy. Adverse symptoms were mild and transient. Forearm plethysmography showed that nifedipine induced arteriolar but not venous dilation and that propranolol attenuated the vasodilator effect of nifedipine. The author concludes that nifedipine was safe and effective in combination with propranolol in this group of patients with essential hypertension.     

Comparison of monotherapy with enalapril and atenolol in mild to moderate hypertension. The Canadian Enalapril Study Group.

Therapy with 10 to 40 mg once daily of enalapril, a new angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, was compared with therapy with 50 to 100 mg once daily of atenolol in a double-blind randomized multicentre trial in 180 patients with a diastolic blood pressure (determined with the patient seated) of 95 to 115 mm Hg between March 1984 and April 1986. A total of 86 patients (61 men and 25 women with a mean age of 49.4 years and a mean blood pressure [and standard deviation] at entry into the trial of 155.5 [15.7]/101.0 [6.3] mm Hg) received enalapril, and 94 patients (63 men and 31 women with a mean age of 50.9 years and a mean blood pressure at entry of 156.6 [16.6]/101.2 [5.7] mm Hg) received atenolol. After a placebo run-in period the patients received increasing dosages of medication every 2 weeks until the target diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or less was achieved on two consecutive visits, the maximum dosage was reached, or the patient withdrew because of adverse effects. At 14 weeks the mean blood pressure was 141.6 (18.0)/90.1 (9.5) mm Hg in the enalapril group (61 patients) and 140.0 (17.1)/88.4 (8.7) mm Hg in the atenolol group (54 patients). The target diastolic blood pressure was achieved on completion of therapy (between weeks 10 and 14) in 67 (77%) of the patients receiving enalapril and 75 (79%) of the patients receiving atenolol. Compliance was similar in the two groups. Seven patients withdrew because of adverse effects, three in the enalapril group and four in the atenolol group. The results suggest that once-daily monotherapy with enalapril, 10 to 40 mg, is effective in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension and is as effective as and tolerated as well as once-daily therapy with atenolol, 50 to 100 mg.     

Relation between arterial pressure,dietary sodium intake,and renin system in essential hypertension.

Forty-one patients with mild essential hypertension, 36 patients with severe hypertension, and 28 normotensive subjects were studied on a high sodium intake of 350 mmol/day for five days and low sodium intake of 10 mmol/day for five days. The fall in mean arterial pressure on changing from the high-sodium to the low-sodium diet was 0.7 +/- 1.7 mm Hg in normotensive subjects, 8 +/- 1.4 mm Hg in patients with mild hypertension, and 14.5 +/- 1.4 mm Hg in patients with severe hypertension. The fall in blood pressure was not correlated with age. Highly significant correlations were obtained for all subjects between the ratio of the fall in mean arterial pressure to the fall in urinary sodium excretion on changing from a high- to a low-sodium diet and (a) the level of supine blood pressure on normal diet, (b) the rise in plasma renin activity, and (c) the rise in plasma aldosterone. In patients with essential hypertension the blood pressure is sensitive to alterations in sodium intake. This may be partly due to some change either produced by or associated directly with the hypertension. A decreased responsiveness of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system shown in the patients with essential hypertension could partly account for the results.     

Verapamil versus hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of hypertension: results of long term double blind comparative trial. Verapamil versus Diuretic (VERDI) Trial Research Group.

OBJECTIVE--To compare the efficacy and tolerability of hydrochlorothiazide, sustained release verapamil, and their combination in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. DESIGN--Randomised multicentre trial of 48 weeks'' duration with a double blind comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and verapamil followed by an open trial of combined treatment for patients not achieving the target diastolic blood pressure (less than 90 mm Hg) during treatment with a single drug. SETTING--Outpatient departments in 10 clinics and 10 private practices of general practitioners or internists. PATIENTS--369 Hypertensive patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 95-120 mm Hg during a placebo run in period of two weeks. INTERVENTIONS--Initial treatment consisted of 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide (n = 187) or 120 mg sustained release verapamil (n = 182) once daily (regimen I). If the target diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg was not achieved within four weeks doses were increased to 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide or 240 mg verapamil once (regimen II) and twice daily (regimen III). Patients not achieving target blood pressure were given the combination of hydrochlorothiazide and verapamil--that is, 25 and 240 mg once (regimen IV) and twice daily (regimen V). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Blood pressure determined with a device permitting automatic repeated measurements with printouts. RESULTS--After eight weeks of treatment with a single drug 76 out of 178 (43%) and 101 out of 175 (58%) patients achieved the target blood pressure with hydrochlorothiazide and verapamil, respectively. During follow up until 48 weeks patients treated with verapamil reached the target blood pressure more often and at lower doses and were less likely to switch to combination treatment than patients randomised to hydrochlorothiazide treatment. Adding verapamil to hydrochlorothiazide was more effective than the addition of hydrochlorothiazide to verapamil. At the end of the study 42 out of 169 (25%) and 73 out of 163 (45%) patients initially randomised to hydrochlorothiazide and verapamil, respectively, were at target blood pressure without combination treatment. After adding verapamil to hydrochlorothiazide or hydrochlorothiazide to verapamil an additional 58 (34%) and 29 (18%) patients reached the target blood pressure, respectively. Altogether 92 out of 332 (28%) patients failed to achieve target blood pressure with regimen V. There were four, 10, seven, and seven withdrawals due to possible adverse effects to treatment with hydrochlorothiazide, verapamil, combining verapamil with hydrochlorothiazide, and combining hydrochlorothiazide with verapamil, respectively. CONCLUSIONS--In doses currently used in antihypertensive treatment verapamil was more effective than hydrochlorothiazide as a single agent and in combination in mild to moderate hypertension, whereas withdrawal rates caused by side effects possibly related to treatment were similar.     

Moderate sodium restriction with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor in essential hypertension: a double blind study.

Fifteen unselected patients who had essential hypertension and whose average supine blood pressure when they were not receiving any treatment and their usual sodium intake was 162/107 mm Hg were treated with captopril 50 mg twice daily. After one month''s treatment their supine blood pressure had decreased to 149/94 mm Hg. They were then instructed to reduce their sodium intake to about 80 mmol(mEq)/day. After two weeks of moderate sodium restriction they were entered into a double blind randomised crossover study comparing the effect of 10 Slow Sodium tablets (100 mmol sodium chloride) with matching placebo tablets while continuing to take captopril and restrict sodium in their diet. After one month of taking placebo their mean supine blood pressure was 137/88 mm Hg with a urinary sodium excretion of 83 mmol/24 h, while after one month of taking Slow Sodium tablets their mean supine blood pressure was 150/97 mm Hg (p less than 0.001) with a sodium excretion of 183 mmol/24 h. The mean supine blood pressure during moderate sodium restriction therefore decreased by 9% and correlated significantly with the reduction in urinary sodium excretion. These results suggest that the combination of treatment with a moderate but practical reduction in sodium intake and an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor is effective in decreasing the blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension. This combined approach overcomes some of the objections that have been made to salt restriction alone and to converting enzyme inhibitors alone.     

Nifedipine in hypertensive emergencies.

The effects and safety of using oral nifedipine 10-20 mg as acute antihypertensive treatment were studied in a single-blind placebo-controlled study of 25 consecutive patients with very high blood pressure requiring emergency reduction. In addition the effect of this treatment on cerebral blood flow was investigated using xenon-133 in 10 patients randomly allocated to receive oral nifedipine or intravenous clonidine. Whereas placebo did not alter the blood pressure, oral nifedipine significantly reduced the systolic and diastolic blood pressures in all 25 patients (from 221 +/- 22/126 +/- 14 mm Hg to 152 +/- 20/89 +/- 12 mm Hg after 30 minutes, p less than 0.001). Heart rate increased from 74 +/- 11 to 84 +/- 11 beats/minute (p less than 0.01); this effect was inversely related to age (r = -0.65, p less than 0.01). The falls in systolic and diastolic blood pressures were closely related to the blood pressures before treatment ) r = 0.67, p less than 0.001 for systolic, and r = -0.58, p less than 0.01 for diastolic values). No serious unwanted effects were observed. Measurement of cerebral blood flow after nifedipine showed an increase in flow in four out of five patients. Clonidine, by contrast, reduced cerebral blood flow in all patients by up to 28%. Nifedipine is a simple, effective, and safe alternative drug for managing hypertensive emergencies, especially when continuous monitoring of the patient cannot be guaranteed.     

Effects of propranolol and metoprolol on the peripheral circulation.

The effects of single doses of propranolol and metoprolol on skin temperature and skin and muscle blood flow were compared in 10 normal subjects and four patients with essential hypertension. In normal subjects the mean skin temperature fell by 1.30 +/- 0.62 degrees C 90 minutes after 80 mg propranolol and 0.15 +/- 0.05 degrees C after 100 mg metoprolol. Skin blood flow and resting muscle blood flow were not affected by metoprolol but fell significantly after propranolol. Both drugs reduced post-exercise muscle hyperaemia, propranolol by more than metoprolol. Similar changes were seen in the hypertensive patients. Propranolol should be used with care in patients with known vascular disease.     

Intranasally administered phenylephrine and blood pressure.

The possibility that intranasally administered phenylephrine might cause systemic vasoconstriction and an important increase in blood pressure if administered to susceptible individuals in higher doses was investigated in two groups potentially at high risk: 12 patients with chronic nasal congestion whose blood pressure was normal and 14 patients with hypertension receiving the beta-blocker metoprolol. On two separate days increasing doses (0.5 to 4 mg) of phenylephrine or a placebo of identical appearance were instilled into the nostrils at hourly intervals. The blood pressure and the heart rate were recorded every 10 minutes. The total amount of phenylephrine administered (7.5 to 15 mg) was 4 to 30 times the manufacturer''s recommended dose. No significant changes in blood pressure or heart rate occurred in either group after the instillation of phenylephrine.     

Natural progesterone and antihypertensive action.

In a placebo controlled, double blind crossover study natural progesterone was given by mouth, in increasing doses, to six men and four postmenopausal women with mild to moderate hypertension who were not receiving any other antihypertensive drugs. When compared with values recorded before treatment and during administration of placebo progesterone caused a significant reduction in blood pressure, suggesting that progesterone has an antihypertensive action rather than a hypertensive one as has been previously thought. This possible protective effect of progesterone should be investigated further.     

Effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (captopril) on blood pressure in anephric subjects.

Randomised, double-blind cross-over trials were performed in seven anephric patients to determine the effect of the orally active angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor captopril on blood pressure in fluid-depleted and fluid-replete patients. Patients were given captopril, 100 mg orally, or placebo one hour after haemodialysis, when they were fluid depleted. Their mean (+/- SEM) supine blood pressure fell from 127 +/- 12/71 +/- 6 mm Hg before captopril to 106 +/- 13/54 +/- 4 mm Hg 24 hours after the drug, while on placebo it rose from 123 +/- 11/73 +/- 5 mm Hg to 134 +/- 10/82 +/- 8 mm Hg. All patients developed orthostatic hypotension after captopril. In the fluid-replete state, two days after haemodialysis, captopril had no effect on blood pressure. The plasma concentration of active renin was extremely low and did not rise after fluid withdrawal or captopril. Thus the hypotensive effect of captopril did not appear to depend on circulating renin concentrations. The concept of "renin-dependent" hypertension, which is responsive to captopril, as opposed to "volume-dependent" hypertension, which is not responsive to captopril, may therefore be invalid.