Approach to drug therapy for hypertension.

Prevention of complications of hypertension requires the lowering of blood pressure. The therapeutic goal is to achieve and maintain a diastolic pressure of less than 90 mm Hg with minimal adverse effects. The treatment of patients with established diastolic blood pressures between 90 and 104 mm Hg (determined from three separate readings) should be individualized; general measures such as weight loss and salt restriction should be tried first as an alternative to drug therapy. Patients with diastolic pressure in excess of 104 mm Hg should be treated with antihypertensive drugs; the first step should be the use of a thiazide diuretic in addition to general measures. Patients with diastolic pressures of 90 to 115 mm Hg may require the addition of a beta-adrenergic-receptor antagonist, methyldopa or clonidine if the therapeutic goal is not achieved; rarely they require the further addition of hydralazine or prazosin. Patients with diastolic pressures of 116 to 129 mm Hg usually require initially both a thiazide diuretic and a beta-blocker, methyldopa or clonidine; if the therapeutic goal is not achieved, hydralazine or prazosin is added, and if a further hypotensive effect is required guanethidine can be added. Patients with severe hypertension (diastolic pressures greater than 130 mm Hg) may require urgent treatment with combinations of drugs of all three levels. Emphasis should be placed on individualized therapy and patient compliance in the assessment of therapeutic failures. These "step-care" guidlines represent a framework for antihypertensive therapy devised from information available in 1977. It is not a rigid scheme and should be adjusted to the individual patient to ensure as normal a life as possible.     

Treatment of Hypertension with Propranolol

When used in the treatment of hypertension propranolol is at least of similar potency to bethanidine, guanethidine, and methyldopa. Propranolol does not produce postural or exercise hypotension and it seems that it is often more acceptable to patients than conventional drugs. It usually produces the best control of the supine blood pressure.A series of 109 hypertensive patients was treated with propranolol; in nine the drug was withdrawn. In 92 of the patients a supine or standing blood pressure of 100 mm. Hg or less was achieved. Eighty of the patients had previously been treated with other potent drugs, and close comparisons and prolonged follow-up in 17 patients showed that diastolic pressures of 100 mm. Hg or less were achieved in more patients after propranolol than with guanethidine, bethanidine, or methyldopa.Sensitivity to propranolol varies widely, and dosage should be increased gradually. The hypotensive effect often takes six to eight weeks to reach its maximum. Propranolol reduces cardiac output but may also act by reducing the cardiac component of pressor stimuli; as a result the baroreceptors gradually regulate the blood pressure at a lower level. It is contraindicated in patients with obstructive airways disease or in uncompensated heart failure.     

Coronary flow reserve and the J curve relation between diastolic blood pressure and myocardial infarction.

The results of several large studies of hypertension and follow up studies on insured people have indicated that the lower the blood pressure the better for longevity. These studies excluded subjects with overt ischaemia. More recently long term studies of hypertension that included patients with more severe forms of hypertension and did not exclude those with overt ischaemia have shown a J shaped relation between diastolic blood pressure during treatment and myocardial infarction; the lowest point (the J point) was at a diastolic blood pressure (phase V) between 85 and 90 mm Hg. The J curve seems to be independent of treatment, pulse pressure, and the degree of fall in diastolic blood pressure and is unlikely to be caused by poor left ventricular function. The most probable explanation is that subjects who have severe stenosis of the coronary artery as well as hypertension have a poor coronary flow reserve, which makes the myocardium vulnerable to coronary perfusion pressures that are tolerated by patients without ischaemia, particularly at high heart rates. An optimal diastolic blood pressure (phase V) for such patients is about 85 mm Hg, though particular caution is appropriate when treating very old patients (84 and over) and patients aged 60-79 who have isolated systolic hypertension.     

Blood Pressure in a Scottish Town

As part of a general health screening survey in the Burgh of Renfrew blood pressure was measured in 3,001 subjects (78·8% of those eligible) aged 45 to 64. In 468 (15·6%) diastolic blood pressure was 100 mm Hg or more. A year later the mean blood pressure for those of the population re-examined showed no change, there being an equal number of subjects with increased and decreased pressures. The prognostic significance of those showing the larger fluctuations remains to be determined through medical-record linkage.Examination of the general practitioners'' medical records of 422 of the 468 subjects with diastolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or more showed that 255 had no previous documented hypertension. Of the remainder 73 were receiving antihypertensive therapy. Examination of the records of subjects whose blood pressure was under 100 mm Hg showed that 55 were receiving antihypertensive treatment and that another 113 had previously been recorded as having a diastolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or more by their general practitioner. Altogether at least 636 (21·2%) of those who were examined had been considered at some time to have evidence of hypertension.The prevalence of undetected hypertension in the general population has important implications for the resources of the National Health Service if current trials show benefit to the health of the community from treating “mild” as well as “moderate” hypertension.     

Long-acting nifedipine versus metoprolol as monotherapy for essential hypertension. A randomized,controlled crossover study.

We assessed the efficacy of long-acting nifedipine as monotherapy in 52 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension in a randomized, controlled crossover study. Good blood pressure control was achieved in 34 of 40 patients (85%) receiving nifedipine (mean daily dose, 52 mg in 2 divided doses) compared with 23 of 40 patients (58%) receiving metoprolol (mean daily dose, 155 mg in 2 divided doses). After treatment for 4 weeks, the mean blood pressures with nifedipine (149.7 +/- 16.6/88.7 +/- 11.1 mm of mercury) and metoprolol administration (163.9 +/- 23.3/94.2 +/- 10.2 mm of mercury) were significantly lower than with placebo (176.7 +/- 17.3/100.9 +/- 7.1 mm of mercury) (P less than .05). The mean systolic pressure during nifedipine treatment was 14.2 mm of mercury lower (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9 to 24.5 mm of mercury) and mean diastolic pressure 5.5 mm of mercury (95% CI, 0.3 to 10.7 mm of mercury) lower than with metoprolol therapy. Both drugs were reasonably well tolerated, and intolerance requiring withdrawal was encountered in 3 of 45 (7%) patients receiving nifedipine, compared with 1 of 45 (2%) of those taking metoprolol and placebo, respectively. Adverse effects of nifedipine, most of which were transient, included palpitations, headache, facial flushing, and ankle edema. Long-acting nifedipine is a promising agent when given alone for mild to moderate hypertension and can be safely administered in clinical practice.     

Angiotensin II in essential hypertension.

Plasma concentrations of angiotensin II (PAC) were measured in a group of 146 hypertensive patients (diastolic pressure greater than 105 mm Hg) who had no apparent underlying cause for their condition and 113 randomly selected normotensive controls (diastolic pressure less than 90 mm Hg). There was no evidence of bimodality in the frequency distribution curves for plasma angiotensin II concentrations among the hypertensive patients. It was concluded that hypertension associated with low angiotensin II concentration and by implication "low-renin" hypertension is not a condition separate from essential hypertension.     

Control of blood pressure and risk of first acute myocardial infarction: Skaraborg hypertension project.

OBJECTIVE--To analyse the relation between treated blood pressure and concomitant risk factor and morbidity from acute myocardial infarction. DESIGN--Prospective longitudinal study. Treated blood pressures and other variables were used to predict acute myocardial infarction. SETTING--Primary health care in Skaraborg, Sweden. SUBJECTS--1121 men and 1453 women aged 40-69 years at registration at outpatient clinics, 1977-81, with no evidence of previous myocardial infarction were followed up for an average of 7.4 years. Subjects were undergoing treatment with drugs to lower blood pressure or had blood pressure that exceeded the systolic or diastolic limits, or both, for diagnosis (> 170/> 105 mm Hg (patients aged 40-60 years) and > 180/> 110 mm Hg (older than 60 years)) on three different occasions, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--First validated event of fatal or non-fatal acute myocardial infarction. RESULTS--In men but not in women there was a negative relation between treated diastolic blood pressure and risk of acute myocardial infarction. Left ventricular hypertrophy and smoking were contributory risk factors in both sexes, as was serum cholesterol concentration in men. In men with normal electrocardiograms (n = 345) risk increased with increasing diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.047), whereas the opposite was found in men with electrocardiograms suggesting ischaemia or hypertrophy, or both (n = 499, P = 0.009). In those with a reading of 95-99 mm Hg the relative risk was 0.30 (P = 0.034); at > or = 100 mm Hg it was 0.37 (P = 0.027). No similar relations were seen in women or for systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION--It may be hazardous to lower diastolic blood pressure below 95 mm Hg in hypertensive men with possible ischaemia or hypertrophy, or both. Electrocardiographic findings should be considered when treatment goals are decided for men with hypertension.     

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.     

Caffeine restriction: effect on mild hypertension.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the effects on blood pressure of modifying dietary caffeine intake in patients with mild and borderline hypertension by monitoring ambulatory and clinic blood pressure. DESIGN--Four way, randomised, crossover trial of four consecutive two week dietary regimens: normal diet, caffeine free diet alone, caffeine free diet with decaffeinated instant coffee, caffeine free diet with caffeinated instant coffee (instant coffee phases conducted double blind). SETTING--Hospital hypertension clinic, Scotland. PATIENTS--52 patients (23 men; aged 26-67 years) with untreated borderline or mild hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 90-105 mm Hg) who normally drank a minimum of three cups of coffee daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Mean ambulatory blood pressure over 24 hours; mean morning, daytime, and night time ambulatory blood pressure; sitting clinic blood pressure at 1700; plasma caffeine concentration at 1700 on the last day of each regimen. RESULTS--Mean 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure was not different between regimens. There was no difference in blood pressure variability between regimens. During the caffeine free diet alone morning ambulatory diastolic blood pressure was higher (2.8 mm Hg) than during the caffeine free diet with caffeinated coffee. Mean sitting clinic systolic blood pressure was higher at 1700 (4.7 mm Hg) with a caffeine free diet than with the caffeine free diet with caffeinated coffee (p less than 0.05). Dietary compliance as assessed by plasma caffeine concentration was excellent. There was no significant correlation between plasma caffeine concentration and blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS--Drinking caffeinated instant coffee over a two week period does not adversely influence blood pressure in patients with borderline or mild hypertension; abstinence is of no benefit.     

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.     

Relaxation therapy and continuous ambulatory blood pressure in mild hypertension: a controlled study.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the long term effects of relaxation therapy on 24 hour ambulatory intra-arterial blood pressure in patients with mild untreated and uncomplicated hypertension. DESIGN--Four week screening period followed by randomisation to receive either relaxation therapy or non-specific counselling for one year. Ambulatory intra-arterial blood pressure was measured before and after treatment. SETTING--Outpatient clinic in Amsterdam''s university hospital. SUBJECTS--35 Subjects aged 20-60 who were being treated by general practitioners for hypertension but were referred to take part in the study. At three consecutive screening visits all subjects had a diastolic blood pressure without treatment of 95-110 mm Hg. Subjects were excluded if they had damaged target organs, secondary hypertension, diabetes mellitus, a cholesterol concentration greater than 8 mmol/l, or a history of malignant hypertension. INTERVENTIONS--The group allocated to relaxation therapy was trained for eight weeks (one hour a week) in muscle relaxation, yoga exercises, and stress management and continued exercising twice daily for one year with monthly visits to the clinic. The control group had the same attendance schedule but had no training and were requested just to sit and relax twice a day. All subjects were asked not to change their diet or physical activity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Changes in ambulatory intra-arterial blood pressure after one year of relaxation therapy or non-specific counselling. RESULTS--Mean urinary sodium excretion, serum concentration of cholesterol, and body weight did not change in either group. Diastolic pressures measured by sphygmomanometry were 2 and 3 mm Hg lower in subjects in the relaxation group and control group respectively at the one year follow up compared with initial readings. The mean diastolic ambulatory intra-arterial pressure during the daytime had not changed after one year in either group, but small treatment effects could not be excluded: the mean change for the relaxation group was -1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -6 to 3.9 mm Hg) and for the control group -0.4 mm Hg (-5.3 to 4.6 mm Hg). Mean ambulatory pressure in the evening also had not changed over the year, and in both groups nighttime pressure was 5 mm Hg higher. The variability in blood pressure was the same at both measurements. CONCLUSIONS--Relaxation therapy was an ineffective method of lowering 24 hour blood pressure, being no more beneficial than non-specific advice, support, and reassurance--themselves ineffective as a treatment for hypertension.     

SPORADIC ACUTE GLOMERULONEPHRITIS IN ADULTS

Nineteen adults who had acute glomerulonephritis were reviewed with respect to the clinical course and long-term follow-up. The age range was from 17 to 55 years. Only one patient died during the acute episode. In 11 cases, onset occurred between November and January and 15 of the patients had a known respiratory tract infection three to 30 days before the onset. The most important symptoms noted were weight gain, edema, dyspnea, oliguria and red or smoky urine. The most prominent physical signs were elevated blood pressure, edema, abnormalities in the chest and fever of over 100° F. Fifteen patients showed roentgen evidence of pulmonary vascular congestion, pleural effusion, cardiomegaly, pneumonia or a combination of these abnormalities. All the patients had proteinuria and red blood cells in the urine, and half of them had red blood cell casts. Azotemia, when present, subsided in 9.4 days. The average diastolic pressure was 105 mm. of mercury and the mean fall was 26 mm. in 23.5 days. At six months, nine of the 13 patients still being observed continued to show proteinuria or microscopic hematuria (seven showed both). A late follow-up of ten patients showed one to have significant hypertension and one to have early functional impairment and inconstant proteinuria. In these cases the average blood pressure was 140/91 mm. as compared with 119/74 mm. at the time of discharge.Sporadic glomerulonephritis in adults presents essentially the same pattern as it does in children. Urinary abnormalities may persist for months or even years, and neither the present series nor those reported by others clearly reveal the ultimate prognosis.     

Blood pressure and heart rate effects, weight loss and maintenance during long-term phentermine pharmacotherapy for obesity

There is a perception that phentermine pharmacotherapy for obesity increases blood pressure and heart rate (HR), exposing treated patients to increased cardiovascular risk. We collected data from phentermine‐treated (PT) and phentermine‐untreated (P0) patients at a private weight management practice, to examine blood pressure, HR, and weight changes. Records of 300 sequential returning patients were selected who had been treated with a low‐carbohydrate ketogenic diet if their records included complete weight, blood pressure, and HR data from seven office examinations during the first 12 weeks of therapy. The mean time in therapy, time range, and mode was 92 (97.0), 12–624, and 52 weeks. 14% were normotensive, 52% were prehypertensive, and 34% were hypertensive at their first visit or had a previous diagnosis of hypertension. PT subjects systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) declined from baseline at all data points (SBP/DBP ?6.9/?5.0 mm Hg at 26, and ?7.3/?5.4 at 52 weeks). P0 subjects' declines of SBP/DBP at both 26 and 52 weeks were ?8.9/?6.3 but the difference from the treated cohort was not significant. HR changes in treated/untreated subjects at weeks 26 (?0.9/?3.5) and 52 (+1.2/?3.6) were not significant. Weight loss was significantly greater in the PT cohort for week 1 through 104 (P = 0.0144). These data suggest phentermine treatment for obesity does not result in increased SBP, DBP, or HR, and that weight loss assisted with phentermine treatment is associated with favorable shifts in categorical blood pressure and retardation of progression to hypertension in obese patients.     

Three year follow up of patients with raised blood pressure identified at health checks in general practice.

OBJECTIVE--To assess the extent of three year follow up of blood pressure, weight, and smoking habit in patients with raised blood pressure identified at health checks. DESIGN--Retrospective audit of medical and nursing records. SETTING--Three general practices in Oxfordshire. PATIENTS--386 of 448 patients with raised blood pressure (diastolic greater than or equal to 90 or systolic greater than or equal to 160 mm Hg) identified from 2935 patients aged 35-64 attending health checks in 1982-4. MEASUREMENTS and MAIN RESULTS--All records of blood pressure, weight, and smoking habit in the medical record were abstracted for three years after the initial health check. All 42 patients with an initial diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 105 mm Hg and 316 of 344 patients with an initial pressure of 90-104 mm Hg had at least one further measurement of their blood pressure. Follow up of smoking habit and of weight was less complete with only half of the 100 smokers and 67 of the 87 obese patients (body mass index greater than or equal to 30) having any documented follow up of these risk factors. Annual follow up in the second and third years occurred in 228/297 (76.8%) and 232/320 (72.5%) in patients with blood pressure greater than 95 mm Hg at the beginning of each year. For patients who smoked annual follow up in these years occurred in fewer than a third and for those who were obese in just over half. On the assumption that those not followed up had not changed, at the end of three years the proportion of patients with diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 100 mm Hg had fallen from 61 patients (15.8%) to 31 (8.1%); the proportion of smokers had fallen from 103 (26.7%) to 94 (24.4%); and the proportion of obese patients had fallen from 87 (22.5%) to 79 (20.5%). CONCLUSIONS--These changes were modest and in the absence of a control group cannot be attributed necessarily to health checks. Although the standard of follow up was better than in previously reported studies of the management of hypertension, the results emphasise the need to develop formal protocols for dietary and antismoking interventions and to evaluate formally the effectiveness (and cost effectiveness) of health checks.     

Combined behavioral and pharmacological treatment of essential hypertension

Fifty-two pharmacologically treated hypertensive patients were randomized to one of four treatment groups: (1) diastolic blood pressure biofeedback, (2) progressive deep muscle relaxation training, (3) self-directed relaxation training, or (4) medication alone. Data collection occurred during baseline, treatment, and 1-year follow-up phases in a laboratory, a medical clinic, and the patient's own home. Patients from all four groups combined showed mean blood pressure reductions of -10.2/-5.5 mm Hg on clinic recordings and -2.4/-.7 mm Hg on home recordings, which were maintained throughout the follow-up period. There were no significant differences among the four groups in terms of blood pressure reduction. Patients given adjunctive behavioral treatment showed significantly larger reductions in medication usage compared to patients treated with medication alone, but there were no significant differences among the three behaviorally treated groups. Patients who showed medication reductions did not show subsequent blood pressure elevation. The results suggest that combined behavioral and pharmacological therapy may be superior to pharmacological therapy alone in the treatment of essential hypertension.     

Antihypertensive effect of diet compared with drug treatment in obese men with mild hypertension.

OBJECTIVE--To determine whether dietary treatment has a similar antihypertensive effect to conventional drug treatment while being superior to drugs in improving serum lipid concentrations in obese men with mild hypertension. DESIGN--Six week run in period followed by randomisation to either diet or drug treatment groups for one year. SETTING--Outpatient clinic in city hospital. PATIENTS--61 Men aged 40-69 years, body mass index greater than or equal to 26, diastolic blood pressure 90-104 mm Hg when untreated. Exclusion criteria were signs of organ damage secondary to hypertension and diseases that might have interfered with compliance or with interpretation of results. INTERVENTIONS--Dietary treatment was based on weight reduction, restriction of sodium, and decrease of excess alcohol intake (defined as greater than or equal to 250 g alcohol per week). Drug treatment used a stepped care approach with atenolol as drug of first choice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Diastolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg; absolute reductions in blood pressure and serum lipid concentrations. RESULTS--Mean body weight decreased 7.6 kg in the diet group and increased 0.9 kg in the drug treatment group (p less than 0.0001), and mean sodium excretion decreased 42 and 10 mmol/24 h respectively (p = 0.019). There was no difference in reported alcohol intake. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased 4 mm Hg in the diet group and 16 mm Hg in the drug group (p = 0.003) and diastolic blood pressure 3 and 11 mm Hg respectively (p = 0.002). Diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg was attained by 29% of the diet group (nine men) and 73% (22) of those receiving drug treatment (mean difference 44%, 95% confidence interval 21 to 67%, p = 0.001). Dietary treatment produced decreases in mean serum concentrations of total and low density lipoprotein cholesterol as well as triglycerides and an increase in high density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration. In the drug treatment group the changes were in the opposite direction, and the groups differed significantly in all but total cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS--Dietary treatment was inferior to conventional drug treatment in controlling mild hypertension but superior in lowering serum concentrations of lipids.     

Management of raised blood pressure in New Zealand: a discussion document.

A report to the National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Support Services, New Zealand, on the management of raised blood pressure recommends that decisions to treat raised blood pressure should be based primarily on the estimated absolute risk of cardiovascular disease rather than on blood pressure alone. In general, patients with a blood pressure of 150-170 mm Hg systolic or 90-100 mm Hg diastolic, or both, should be given treatment to lower blood pressure if the risk of a major cardiovascular disease event in 10 years is more than about 20%. The results of clinical trials indicate that, at this level of absolute risk, 150 people would require treatment to reduce the annual number of cardiovascular events by about one. Implementation of these recommendations may result in a smaller proportion of people aged under 60, particularly women, receiving treatment but an increased proportion of older people treated. In the absence of specific contraindications, low dose diuretics and low dose beta blockers should be considered for first line treatment, since for only these drug groups is there direct evidence of reduced risk of stroke and coronary disease in people with raised blood pressure.     

Report of the Canadian Hypertension Society Consensus Conference: 2. Nonpharmacologic management and prevention of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy

OBJECTIVE: To provide Canadian physicians with comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for the nonpharmacologic management and prevention of gestational hypertension and pre-existing hypertension during pregnancy. OPTIONS: Lifestyle modifications, dietary or nutrient interventions, plasma volume expansion and use of prostaglandin precursors or inhibitors. OUTCOMES: In gestational hypertension, prevention of complications and death related to either its occurrence (primary or secondary prevention) or its severity (tertiary prevention). In pre-existing hypertension, prevention of superimposed gestational hypertension and intrauterine growth retardation. EVIDENCE: Articles retrieved from the pregnancy and childbirth module of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; pertinent articles published from 1966 to 1996, retrieved through a MEDLINE search; and review of original randomized trials from 1942 to 1996. If evidence was unavailable, consensus was reached by the members of the consensus panel set up by the Canadian Hypertension Society. VALUES: High priority was given to prevention of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnancies with established hypertension and in those at high risk of gestational hypertension through the provision of effective nonpharmacologic management. BENEFITS, HARMS AND COSTS: Reduction in rate of long-term hospital admissions among women with gestational hypertension, with establishment of safe home-care blood pressure monitoring and appropriate rest. Targeting prophylactic interventions in selected high-risk groups may avoid ineffective use in the general population. Cost was not considered. RECOMMENDATION: Nonpharmacologic management should be considered for pregnant women with a systolic blood pressure of 140-150 mm Hg or a diastolic pressure of 90-99 mm Hg, or both, measured in a clinical setting. A short-term hospital stay may be required for diagnosis and for ruling out severe gestational hypertension (preeclampsia). In the latter case, the only effective treatment is delivery. Palliative management, dependent on blood pressure, gestational age and presence of associated maternal and fetal risk factors, includes close supervision, limitation of activities and some bed rest. A normal diet without salt restriction is advised. Promising preventive interventions that may reduce the incidence of gestational hypertension, especially with proteinuria, include calcium supplementation (2 g/d), fish oil supplementation and low-dose acetylsalicylic acid therapy, particularly in women at high risk for early-onset gestational hypertension. Pre-existing hypertension should be managed the same way as before pregnancy. However, additional concerns are the effects on fetal well-being and the worsening of hypertension during the second half of pregnancy. There is, as yet, no treatment that will prevent exacerbation of the condition. VALIDATION: The guidelines share the principles in consensus reports from the US and Australia on the nonpharmacologic management of hypertension in pregnancy.     

Perspective on hypertension in the elderly.

More than half of elderly men and women have hypertension, leading to a significant risk of increased morbidity and mortality. The cause of hypertension in this age group is unknown. Left ventricular hypertrophy is frequently present, often associated with diastolic dysfunction. Systolic hypertension in the elderly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, but there are no good data to show that the treatment of isolated systolic hypertension reduces the morbidity or mortality. Good evidence indicates that antihypertensive treatment in this group decreases cardiovascular morbidity and mortality up to age 80, so most elderly hypertensive patients should be treated. An empiric trial of nonpharmacologic therapy can be initiated in those with mild hypertension and no cardiovascular disease, but most patients will require drug therapy. Most elderly hypertensive patients have accompanying illnesses for which they may or may not be taking medications. Some antihypertensive drugs exacerbate coexisting diseases while others augment treatment regimens. Similarly, drugs may interact in a beneficial or adverse way. Finally, drug metabolism is altered by age, leading to problems with toxicity or diminished efficacy. The choice of medication should be based on all such considerations, including the cost and convenience of the drugs available.     

Long-term follow-up of a hypertension screening program.

Of 185 people found to be hypertensive in a shopping centre screening program who went to their physician and had medication prescribed, then were contacted 18 months later, 33 had discontinued the medication at their physician''s request. But of 152 who were to continue taking medication 139 (91.4%) had complied. Blood pressure had decreased to less than 160 mm Hg systolic or less than 95 mm Hg diastolic, or both, in 65.1% of the 152; was 160 to 169 mm Hg systolic or 95 to 99 mm Hg diastolic, or both, in 13.8%; was mildly or moderately decreased but still above 169 mm Hg systolic or 99 mmHg diastolic, or both, in 8.6%; and was higher than before the onset of treatment in 3.9%. Adequacy of blood pressure control was not related to age, sex, initial blood pressure values, awareness before the screening of having hypertension, or treatment for hypertension before the screening. Diuretics had been prescribed for 93.5% of the 139 patients, most often as single-pill combinations with other antihypertensive agents.