Randomised,double blind,multicentre comparison of hydrochlorothiazide,atenolol, nitrendipine,and enalapril in antihypertensive treatment: results of the HANE study. HANE Trial Research Group.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, nitrendipine, and enalapril in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. DESIGN: Randomised multicentre trial over 48 weeks with double blind comparison of treatments. SETTING: 48 centres in four countries. PATIENTS: 868 patients with essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95-120 mm Hg) INTERVENTIONS: Initial treatment (step 1) consisted of 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide (n = 215), 25 mg atenolol (n = 215), 10 mg nitrendipine (n = 218), or 5 mg enalapril (n = 220) once daily. If diastolic blood pressure was not reduced to < 90 mm Hg within four weeks, doses were increased to 25 mg, 50 mg, 20 mg, 10 mg, respectively, once daily (step 2) and after two more weeks to twice daily (step 3). The eight week titration phase was followed by an additional 40 weeks for patients who had reached the target diastolic pressure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood pressure by means of an automatic device with repeated measurements. RESULTS: After eight weeks the response rate for atenolol (63.7%) was significantly higher than for enalapril (50.0%), hydrochlorothiazide (44.7%), or nitrendipine (44.5%). After one year atenolol was still more effective (48.0%) than hydrochlorothiazide (35.4%) and nitrendipine (32.9%), but not significantly better than enalapril (42.7%). The treatment related dropout rate was higher (P < 0.001) in the nitrendipine group (n = 28). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of superiority for antihypertensive effectiveness or tolerability of the "new" classes of antihypertensives (calcium channel blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors). As these drugs are now widely used as treatment of first choice, our results further emphasise the need for studies confirming that they also reduce morbidity and mortality, as has been shown for diuretics and beta blockers.     

Hydrochlorothiazide-amiloride versus hydrochlorothiazide alone for essential hypertension: effects on blood pressure and serum potassium level

In a double-blind randomized controlled trial the effects on the blood pressure and the serum potassium concentration of hydrochlorothiazide-amiloride hydrochloride (Moduret) and hydrochlorothiazide alone were compared in 266 adults who were normokalemic and had a diastolic blood pressure greater than 95 mm Hg at the time of entry into the study. The mean ages (52.2 and 53.8 years) and the proportions of men (66% and 56%) in the groups given the combination drug and hydrochlorothiazide alone respectively were similar. In the group given the combination drug the mean blood pressure, measured while the patients were supine, and the mean serum potassium level fell significantly, from 156/99 to 138/88 mm Hg and from 4.23 to 3.91 mmol/L, after 8 weeks of treatment. In the other group both measures also fell significantly, the blood pressure from 157/99 to 138/87 mm Hg and the potassium level from 4.16 to 3.69 mmol/L. The proportions of patients in the two groups with hypokalemia (14% and 29% respectively), defined as a serum potassium level below 3.5 mmol/L, differed significantly (p = 0.0026), whereas the proportions with a potassium level exceeding 4.5 mmol/L (4.5% and 3.9% respectively) were similar. Thus, the combination drug reduced the blood pressure to the same extent as hydrochlorothiazide alone but significantly less often caused hypokalemia. In light of growing concerns about the cardiovascular complications of hypokalemia, hydrochlorothiazide-amiloride appears preferable to hydrochlorothiazide alone for the treatment of some patients with 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.     

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.     

Progress report on the first sub-Saharan trial of newer versus older antihypertensive drugs in native black patients

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The epidemic surge in hypertension in sub-Saharan Africa is not matched by clinical trials of antihypertensive agents in Black patients recruited in this area of the world. We mounted the Newer versus Older Antihypertensive agents in African Hypertensive patients (NOAAH) trial to compare, in native African patients, a single-pill combination of newer drugs, not involving a diuretic, with a combination of older drugs including a diuretic. METHODS: Patients aged 30 to 69 years with uncomplicated hypertension (140 to 179/90 to 109 mmHg) and [less than or equal to]2 associated risk factors are eligible. After a four week run-in period off treatment, 180 patients have to be randomized to once daily bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide 5/6.25 mg (R) or amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg (E). To attain blood pressure <140/<90 mmHg during six months, the doses of bisoprolol and amlodipine should be increased to 10 mg/day with the possible addition of up to 2 g/day alpha-methyldopa. RESULTS: At the time of writing of this progress report, of 206 patients enrolled in the run-in period, 140 had been randomized. At randomization, the R and E groups were similar (P [greater than or equal to]0.11) with respect to mean age (50.7 years), body mass index (28.2 kg/m2), blood pressure (153.9/91.5 mmHg) and the proportions of women (53.6%) and treatment naive patients (72.7%). After randomization, in the R and E groups combined, blood pressure dropped by 18.2/10.1 mmHg, 19.4/11.2 mmHg, 22.4/12.2 mmHg and 25.8/15.2 mmHg at weeks two (n = 122), four (n = 109), eight (n = 57), and 12 (n = 49), respectively. The control rate was >65% already at two weeks. At 12 weeks, 12 patients (24.5%) had progressed to the higher dose of R or E and/or had alpha-methyldopa added. Cohort analyses of 49 patients up to 12 weeks were confirmatory. Only two patients dropped out of the study. CONCLUSIONS: NOAAH (NCT01030458) demonstrated that blood pressure control can be achieved fast in Black patients born and living in Africa with a simple regimen consisting of a single-pill combination of two antihypertensive agents. NOAAH proves that randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular drugs in the indigenous populations of sub-Saharan Africa are feasible.     

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.     

Contribution of atenolol,bendrofluazide, and hydrallazine to management of severe hypertension.

The efficacy of various combinations of atenolol, bendrofluazide, and hydraliazine given twice daily was assessed in a double-blind trial on 39 patients with moderate to severe essential hypertension. Concurrent treatment with all three drugs proved most effective and produced a mean reduction in blood pressure of 43/31 mm Hg. In the dosage used, hydrallazine affected only the diastolic blood pressure, and when added to either bendrofluazide or bendrofluazide plus atenolol it produced a further mean reduction in pressure of 6 mm Hg. Once-daily treatment with atenolol and bendrofluazide was as effective in reducing blood pressure as the same combination given twice daily, and the hypotensive effect was still present at least 24 hours after the last dose of tablets. A combined tablet of atenolol and bendrofluazide taken once daily would be a simple regimen to follow and would provide almost as much hypotensive effect as a twice-daily regimen incorporating a modest dose of hydrallazine. The hypotensive effect of atenolol was equal to that of bendrofluazide on systolic pressure but significantly better than that of bendrofluazide on diastolic pressure. Atenolol reduced plasma renin and urate concentrations but increased plasma potassium levels. The biochemical effects of atenolol, therefore, may be an advantage over those of bendrofluazide when deciding on first-line treatment for essential hypertension.     

Comparison of reduction in microalbuminuria by enalapril and hydrochlorothiazide in normotensive patients with insulin dependent diabetes.

OBJECTIVE--To compare the effects of sodium depletion and of angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibition on microalbuminuria in insulin dependent diabetes. DESIGN--Randomised, double blind, double dummy parallel study of normotensive diabetic patients with persistent microalbuminuria (30-300 mg/24 h) treated with enalapril or hydrochlorothiazide for one year after a three month, single blind placebo period. SETTING--Diabetic clinic in a tertiary referral centre. PATIENTS--10 diabetic patients with low microalbuminuria (30-99 mg/24 h) and 11 with high microalbuminuria (100-300 mg/24 h). INTERVENTIONS--11 subjects (six with low microalbuminuria, five with high microalbuminuria) were given enalapril 20 mg plus placebo hydrochlorothiazide once daily and 10 (four with low microalbuminuria, six with high microalbuminuria) hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg plus placebo enalapril once daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Monthly assessment of urinary albumin excretion and mean arterial pressure; plasma active renin and aldosterone concentrations and renal function studies at 0, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS--Median urinary albumin excretion decreased from 59 (range 37-260) to 38 (14-146) mg/24 h with enalapril and from 111 (33-282) to 109 (33-262) mg/24 h with hydrochlorothiazide (analysis of variance, p = 0.0436). During the last three months of treatment with enalapril five patients had persistent normoalbuminuria (2-3 times below 30 mg/24 h), five low microalbuminuria, and one high microalbuminuria; in the hydrochlorothiazide group one had normoalbuminuria, three low microalbuminuria, and six high microalbuminuria (chi 2 test = 6.7; p = 0.03). Mean arterial pressure did not differ before (98 (SD 7) with enalapril v 97 (9) mm Hg with hydrochlorothiazide) or during treatment (88 (7) with enalapril v 90 (7) mm Hg with hydrochlorothiazide (analysis of variance, p = 0.5263)). Glomerular filtration rate did not vary. The aldosterone to active renin ratio was decreased by angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibition and increased by sodium depletion, showing treatment efficacy. CONCLUSION--Angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibition by enalapril effectively reduces microalbuminuria in normotensive diabetic patients whereas hydrochlorothiazide is not effective. Changes in blood pressure and activity of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may contribute to these different effects.     

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.     

Methyldopa and propranolol or practolol in moderate hypertension.

The effect of a low dose of methyldopa combined with (a) a non-selective and (b) a selective beta-adrenoceptor antagonist was studied in a double-blind crossover trial in 24 carefully selected patients with moderate hypertension (mean initial lying blood pressure 189/117 mm Hg). Each patient received methyldopa 750 mg/day, propranolol 240 mg/day, practolol 600 mg/day, methyldopa 750 mg/day combined with propranolol 240 mg/day, methyldopa 750 mg/day combined with practolol 600 mg/day, and placebo for four weeks each according to a random sequence. After four weeks of therapy the most effective treatment, methyldopa combined with propranolol, reduced lying and standing blood pressures by 36-5/21-4 mm Hg and 44-7/25 mm Hg respectively. Thic combination had similar effects to those of the combination of methyldopa with the cardioselective agent practolol except that it reduced lying diastolic pressure further. The combination was more effective than either treatment alone. No significant differences were found between the effects of propranolol, practolol, or methyldopa at the doses used.     

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.     

Comparison of the Efficacy of Morning versus Evening Administration of Olmesartan in Uncomplicated Essential Hypertension

A total of 18 diurnally active subjects with uncomplicated, mild to moderate, essential hypertension were studied to compare the efficacy of the morning versus evening administration of an oral olmesartan medication. After a two‐week, wash‐out/placebo run‐in period, subjects with clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥90 mm Hg and <110 mm Hg began 12 weeks of 20 mg olmesartan medoxomil tablet therapy at 08:00 h daily. Four of the 18 subjects required dose escalation to 40 mg at eight weeks because of clinic DBP≥90 mm Hg. After the 12‐week period of once‐a‐day 08:00 h treatment, subjects were immediately switched to an evening (20:00 h) drug‐ingestion schedule for another 12‐week period without change in dose. Subjects underwent 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) before the initiation of morning treatment and at the end of both the 12‐week morning and evening treatment arms. Dosing time did not exert statistically significant differences on the efficacy of olmesartan: the reduction from baseline in the 24 h mean systolic (SBP) and DBP was, respectively, 18.8 and 14.6 mm Hg with morning dosing and 16.1 and 13.2 mm Hg with evening dosing (p>0.152 between groups). The amplitude of the BP 24 h pattern did not vary with dosing time, indicating full 24 h BP reduction no matter the clock hour of treatment. Although, the BP‐lowering effect was somewhat better with morning dosing, the results of this study suggest that the studied olmesartan medoxomil preparation efficiently reduces BP when ingested in the morning (08:00 h) or evening (20:00 h) in equivalent manner, based on statistical testing, throughout the 24 h.     

Double-blind Evaluation of Verapamil,Propranolol, and Isosorbide Dinitrate against a Placebo in the Treatment of Angina Pectoris

In the treatment of angina pectoris a double-blind evaluation of verapamil (Cordilox) at two dose levels—namely, 80 mg thrice daily and 120 mg thrice daily—propranolol (Inderal) 100 mg thrice daily, and isosorbide dinitrate (Vascardin) 20 mg thrice daily has been made against a placebo. The assessment was based on relief from daily attacks of angina on effort and the response to a whole-body exercise test. We can find no statistically significant difference between the effects of verapamil (120 mg three times a day) and propranolol (100 mg three times a day) in the treatment of angina of effort. Both of these preparations are more effective than a placebo both in the reduction of daily attacks (P < 0·01) and in the prolongation of exercise test (P < 0·05). Isosorbide dinitrate (20 mg three times a day) appears to be no more effective than a placebo in the treatment of angina on effort, but 14 out of 32 patients experienced headache of such severity that even when the dose was reduced to 10 mg thrice daily this drug therapy had to be withdrawn. Both propranolol (100 mg three times a day) and verapamil (120 mg three times a day) had a significant lowering effect on the diastolic blood pressure as measured with the patient standing (P < 0·01).     

Community care compared with hospital outpatient care for hypertensive patients.

Three hundred and seventy-six patients with treated diastolic blood pressures of less than 105 mm Hg and no history of accelerated hypertension or renal failure were selected from among those attending the Hammersmith Hospital hypertension clinic. Their average lying treated blood pressure was 146 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic and average age 56 years; 18% were black, 6% Asian, and 76% white. The patients were mostly having multiple treatment, 90% receiving a diuretic, 35% methyldopa, 33% propranolol, 18% atenolol, 9% hydrallazine, and 7% bethanidine. They were randomly allocated to either two years of further hospital outpatient care or referred back to their general practitioners. During the two years 19 (10%) of the 187 patients followed up in hospital defaulted and three had their treatment discontinued. Twelve (6%) of the 189 followed up by their general practitioners defaulted from follow-up and nine had their treatment discontinued. At the end of the trial the average lying blood pressure was 148 mm Hg systolic and 88 mm Hg diastolic in the hospital group and 149 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic in the general practice group. The change in blood pressure was calculated for each individual and showed an average fall of 1.6 mm Hg in standing diastolic pressure in the hospital group and a rise of 1.4 mm Hg in the general practice group (p less than 0.05). The 90% confidence limits for a difference in standing diastolic pressure between the groups were 1 and 5 mm Hg with the pressure lower in the hospital group. General practice care was not quite as effective in controlling blood pressure as continued specialist supervision over two years in this selected group of treated outpatients with mild or moderate hypertension, but these results show that the discharge back to general practitioners of patients who are well controlled after hospital treatment is a sensible policy.     

Cardiovascular effects of the combination of levosimendan and valsartan in hypertensive Dahl/Rapp rats

Hypertension is the main risk factor for left ventricular hypertrophy and development of diastolic heart failure. There is no yet treatment, which can effectively reduce mortality in patients suffering from heart failure with preserved systolic function. We tested whether the calcium sensitizer levosimendan and the AT1-receptor antagonist valsartan could protect from salt-induced hypertension, cardiovascular mortality and heart failure in Dahl/Rapp salt-sensitive rats fed for 7 weeks with a high salt diet (8% NaCl). Levosimendan (1 mg/kg/day via drinking water) and valsartan (30 mg/kg in the food) monotherapies and their combination prevented mortality in Dahl/Rapp rats. The drug combination evoked an additive effect on blood pressure, cardiac hypertrophy, cardiomyocyte cross-sectional area, target organ damage and myocardial ANP mRNA expression. There was a close correlation between systolic blood pressure and cardiac hypertrophy, cardiac and renal damage. As compared to Dahl/Rapp controls kept on low-salt diet (NaCl 0.3%). The high salt rats exhibited impaired diastolic relaxation as assessed by isovolumic relaxation time. Levosimendan alone and in combination with valsartan, improved diastolic relaxation without significantly improving systolic function. Our findings are evidence for an additive effect between levosimendan and valsartan on blood pressure and a blood pressure-dependent protection against the development of salt-induced target organ damage. The present study also demonstrates that levosimendan, alone or in combination with valsartan, can correct diastolic dysfunction induced by salt-dependent hypertension.     

Nifedipine and atenolol singly and combined for treatment of essential hypertension: comparative multicentre study in general practice in the United Kingdom

A randomised double blind parallel group study was performed to compare the efficacy and acceptability of slow release nifedipine (maximum dose 40 mg twice a day) with those of atenolol (maximum dose 100 mg once a day) as single agents for the treatment of essential hypertension. Of 410 patients recruited almost exclusively from general practices in 22 centres in the United Kingdom 210 received nifedipine and 200 atenolol. Both drugs significantly reduced blood pressure, and control—a reduction of the diastolic pressure to less than 95 mm Hg—was obtained in about 65% of patients. Those who received nifedipine had more pronounced reductions in systolic pressure than those who received atenolol. One hundred and forty nine patients who failed to respond adequately to either atenolol or nifedipine in low doses were given both drugs once daily for eight weeks in a fixed combination capsule that contained atenolol 50 mg and nifedipine 20 mg. All patients showed further reductions in blood pressure, although those who were taking β atenolol before the combination capsule had more pronounced reductions in systolic pressures. Twenty six patients (12%) were withdrawn because of adverse effects while taking nifedipine compared with 19 (10%) taking atenolol. Flushing and oedema were more common after the calcium antagonist, whereas diarrhoea and dyspepsia were more common after atenolol. The frequencies of headaches, dizziness, fatigue, and dyspnoea were equally distributed between the two groups. When the fixed combination capsule was taken side effects such as flushing and oedema continued.Nifedipine was more effective than atenolol in lowering systolic blood pressure, although neither drug used alone controlled the pressure of more than two thirds of the patients studied. When used in a fixed combination slightly better control of blood pressure was achieved with a lower dose of each drug.     

Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. MRC Working Party.

To establish whether treatment with diuretic or beta blocker in hypertensive older adults reduces risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, and death.Randomised, placebo controlled, single blind trial.226 general practices in the MRC general practice research framework.4396 patients aged 65-74 randomised to receive diuretic, beta blocker, or placebo. Patients had mean systolic pressures of 160-209 mm Hg and mean diastolic pressures less than 115 mm Hg during an eight week run in and were not taking antihypertensive treatment.Patients were randomised to atenolol 50 mg daily; hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg or 50 mg plus amiloride 2.5 mg or 5 mg daily; or placebo. The regimens were adjusted to achieve specified target pressures. Mean follow up was 5.8 years.Strokes, coronary events, and deaths from all causes.Both treatments reduced blood pressure below the level in the placebo group. Compared with the placebo group, actively treated subjects (diuretic and beta blocker groups combined) had a 25% (95% confidence interval 3% to 42%) reduction in stroke (p = 0.04), 19% (-2% to 36%) reduction in coronary events (p = 0.08), and 17% (2% to 29%) reduction in all cardiovascular events (p = 0.03). After adjusting for baseline characteristics the diuretic group had significantly reduced risks of stroke (31% (3% to 51%) p = 0.04), coronary events (44% (21% to 60%), p = 0.0009), and all cardiovascular events (35% (17% to 49%), p = 0.0005) compared with the placebo group. The beta blocker group showed no significant reductions in these end points. The reduction in strokes was mainly in non-smokers taking the diuretic.Hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride reduce the risk of stroke, coronary events, and all cardiovascular events in older hypertensive adults.     

Effect of environment on blood pressure: home versus hospital.

The effect of environment on blood pressure was studied by recording intra-arterial pressure continuously in nine patients with essential hypertension during controlled periods of activity and rest at home and in hospital. Mean systolic pressure was higher at home (152 +/- 16 mm Hg) than in hospital (138 +/- 11 mm Hg, p less than 0.01), the difference being greatest during the period of activity (165 +/- 21 v 142 +/- 13 mm Hg, p less than 0.001); heart rates and diastolic pressures did not differ significantly at these times. Systolic pressure recorded by conventional sphygmomanometry was also higher at home (173 +/- 23 v 159 +/- 23 mm Hg, p less than 0.01), as was diastolic pressure (98 +/- 10 v 89 +/- 11 mm Hg, p less than 0.02). Systolic pressure was consistently higher at home, and this effect was independent of the pressure of an observer. This must be taken into consideration when assessing blood pressure and efficacy of treatment in hospital.     

Chronopharmacology of Captopril plus Hydrochlorothiazide in Hypertension: Morning Versus Evening Dosing

Blood pressure follows a strong circadian rhythm in normotensive people and in patients with primary hypertension. This may have several implications for antihypertensive therapy, including the time of dosing. For this reason we studied the influence of different dosing times on the antihypertensive effect over 24 h using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). We studied 13 male patients with moderate hypertension with controlled blood pressure over 12 months under a fixed combination of captopril and hydrochlorothiazide. The dosage of the combination therapy was then halved and given as one evening and then as one morning dose, each for 3 weeks. The combination therapy given twice daily showed a good 24-h antihypertensive effect after 12 months of treatment. During the following 6 weeks the mean 24-h blood pressure did not increase under half dosage, irrespective of whether under evening or morning dosing. However, mean daytime values (systolic and diastolic) of ABPM were significantly higher with evening dosing when compared both with full dosage and with half dosage given in the morning. The mean arterial blood pressure over 24 h showed the same differences as systolic and diastolic blood pressure, whereas heart rate was not significantly different between the three therapeutic regimens. ABPM seems to be an ideal method for chronopharmacological investigations under everyday conditions. Our study demonstrated significant differences in daytime blood pressure but not in 24-h blood pressure between morning and evening dosing of a fixed antihypertensive combination therapy.     

Chronopharmacology of Captopril plus Hydrochlorothiazide in Hypertension: Morning Versus Evening Dosing

Blood pressure follows a strong circadian rhythm in normotensive people and in patients with primary hypertension. This may have several implications for antihypertensive therapy, including the time of dosing. For this reason we studied the influence of different dosing times on the antihypertensive effect over 24 h using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). We studied 13 male patients with moderate hypertension with controlled blood pressure over 12 months under a fixed combination of captopril and hydrochlorothiazide. The dosage of the combination therapy was then halved and given as one evening and then as one morning dose, each for 3 weeks. The combination therapy given twice daily showed a good 24-h antihypertensive effect after 12 months of treatment. During the following 6 weeks the mean 24-h blood pressure did not increase under half dosage, irrespective of whether under evening or morning dosing. However, mean daytime values (systolic and diastolic) of ABPM were significantly higher with evening dosing when compared both with full dosage and with half dosage given in the morning. The mean arterial blood pressure over 24 h showed the same differences as systolic and diastolic blood pressure, whereas heart rate was not significantly different between the three therapeutic regimens. ABPM seems to be an ideal method for chronopharmacological investigations under everyday conditions. Our study demonstrated significant differences in daytime blood pressure but not in 24-h blood pressure between morning and evening dosing of a fixed antihypertensive combination therapy.