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.     

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.     

Ambulatory blood pressure during once-daily randomised double-blind administration of atenolol,metoprolol, pindolol,and slow-release propranolol

Intra-arterial ambulatory blood pressure was measured over 24 hours, in 34 patients with newly diagnosed hypertension, both before and after double-blind randomisation to treatment with atenolol (n=9), metoprolol (n=9), pindolol (n=9), or propranolol in its slow-release form (n=7). The dosage of each drug was adjusted at monthly clinic visits until satisfactory control of blood pressure was achieved (140/90 mm Hg or less by cuff) or the maximum dose in the study protocol was reached. A second intra-arterial recording was made after these drugs had been taken once daily at 0800 for three to eight months (mean 5·0±SD 1·4) and was started four hours after the last dose.At the end of the 24-hour recordings blood pressure was significantly lower with all four drugs. The extent to which the drugs reduced blood pressure, however, differed over the 24 hours. Atenolol lowered mean arterial pressure significantly throughout all 24 recorded hours, metoprolol for 12 hours, pindolol for 15 hours, and slow-release propranolol for 22 hours. Neither metoprolol nor pindolol lowered blood pressure during sleep. A significant reduction in heart rate was observed over 20 hours with atenolol, 20 hours with metoprolol, 10 hours with pindolol, and 24 hours with slow-release propranolol. Atenolol, metoprolol, and slow-release propranolol continued to slow the heart rate 24 hours after the last tablet was taken; this effect on heart rate, however, was not sustained throughout the second morning in those patients taking atenolol. Pindolol, the only drug studied that has intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, increased heart rate and did not lower blood pressure during sleep.Atenolol and slow-release propranolol are effective as antihypertensive agents over 24 hours when taken once daily, whereas metoprolol and pindolol may need to be taken more frequently. At times of low sympathetic tone, however, such as during sleep, beta-blockers with intrinsic sympathomimetic activity may raise heart rate and attenuate the fall in blood pressure with treatment.     

Trial of atenolol and chlorthalidone for hypertension in black South Africans.

Twenty-four black patients (Zulus) with hypertension participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over trial of the efficacy of a beta-blocking agent (atenolol) 100 mg once daily as compared with chlorthalidone 25 mg once daily. The two drugs were also given combined at these doses and the effects compared with those of the drugs given alone. Atenolol as sole treatment had no appreciable effect on blood pressure as compared with placebo. Chlorthalidone produced a small decrease, but this was not statistically significant. Combining the two drugs, however, produced a significant reduction in blood pressure (mean lying blood pressure p < 0.001; mean standing blood pressure p < 0.0002). These findings suggest that beta-blockers should not be regarded as baseline treatment of hypertension in blacks.     

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.     

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.     

beta blockade and intermittent claudication: placebo controlled trial of atenolol and nifedipine and their combination.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the effects of the beta 1 selective adrenoceptor blocker atenolol, the dihydropyridine calcium antagonist nifedipine, and the combination of atenolol plus nifedipine on objective and subjective measures of walking performance and foot temperature in patients with intermittent claudication. DESIGN--Randomised controlled double blind four way crossover trial. SETTING--Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield. SUBJECTS--49 patients (40 men) aged 39-70 with chronic stable intermittent claudication. INTERVENTIONS--Atenolol 50 mg twice daily; slow release nifedipine 20 mg twice daily; atenolol 50 mg plus slow release nifedipine 20 mg twice daily; placebo. Each treatment was given for four weeks with no washout interval between treatments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Claudication and walking distances on treadmill; skin temperature of feet as measured by thermistor and probe; blood pressure before and after exercise; subjective assessments of walking difficulty and foot coldness with visual analogue scales. RESULTS--Atenolol did not significantly alter claudication distance (mean change -6%; 95% confidence interval 1% to -13%), walking distance (-2%; 4% to -8%), or foot temperature. Nifedipine did not alter claudication distance (-4%; 3% to -11%), walking distance (-4%; 3% to -10%), or foot temperature. Atenolol plus nifedipine did not alter claudication distance but significantly reduced walking distance (-9%; -3% to -15% (p less than 0.003)) and skin temperature of the more affected foot (-1.1 degrees C; 0 to -2.2 degrees C (p = 0.05)). These effects on walking distance and foot temperature seemed unrelated to blood pressure changes. CONCLUSIONS--There was no evidence of adverse or beneficial effects of atenolol or nifedipine, when given singly, on peripheral vascular disease. The combined treatment, however, affected walking ability and foot temperature adversely. This may have been due to beta blockade plus reduced vascular resistance, which might also explain the reported adverse effects of pindolol and labetalol on claudication.     

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.     

Hydralazine once daily in hypertension.

The effects of hydralazine formulation and dose interval were assessed in 20 patients with hypertension well controlled on conventional hydralazine tablets, 100 mg twice daily, in addition to atenolol and a diuretic. The double-blind study used four regimens crossed over in random order at five-week intervals; placebo; conventional hydralazine 100 mg twice daily; conventional hydralazine 200 mg once daily; and slow-release hydralazine 200 mg once daily. Blood pressure and pulse rate were assessed soon after (2.5 +/- 0.9 h) and immediately before taking hydralazine (previous dose: once daily, 26.5 +/- 0.9 h; twice daily, 13.6 +/- 2.0 h). Seventeen patients completed the study. All hydralazine regimens were associated with significant falls in blood pressure. Once-daily treatment with conventional hydralazine was unsatisfactory, as its hypotensive effect waned at 24 h; there was a significant difference between the peak and trough effects on blood pressure and pulse in rapid acetylators. Compared with placebo twice-daily conventional hydralazine and once-daily slow-release hydralazine gave satisfactory control for 24 hours in both rapid and slow acetylators, though the hypotensive effect was larger in the slow acetylators. It is concluded that there is no need to administer hydralazine more than twice daily.     

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.     

Contrasting effects of enalapril and metoprolol on proteinuria in diabetic nephropathy.

OBJECTIVE--To assess whether angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition reduces proteinuria in diabetic nephropathy more than blood pressure reduction with other antihypertensive treatment. DESIGN--Prospective, open randomised study lasting eight weeks in patients with diabetic nephropathy. SETTING--Outpatient nephrology clinics. PATIENTS--40 Patients with type I diabetes and diabetic nephropathy with reduced renal function. INTERVENTION--Antihypertensive treatment with enalapril or metoprolol, usually combined with frusemide. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Arterial blood pressure and urinary excretion of albumin and protein. RESULTS--Arterial blood pressure after eight weeks was 135/82 (SD 13/7) mm Hg in the group given enalapril and 136/86 (16/12) mm Hg in the group given metoprolol. Proteinuria and albuminuria were similar in both groups before randomisation. After eight weeks'' treatment, the geometric mean albumin excretion was 0.7 (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.2) g/24 h in the patients given enalapril and 1.6 (1.1 to 2.5) g/24 h in the patients given metoprolol (p less than 0.02). The proteinuria was 1.1 (0.7 to 1.7) and 2.4 (1.6 to 3.6) g/24 h respectively (p less than 0.02). CONCLUSIONS--Antihypertensive treatment with enalapril reduced proteinuria in patients with diabetic nephropathy more than an equally effective antihypertensive treatment with metoprolol. This points to a specific antiproteinuric effect of the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor independent of the effect on systemic blood pressure.     

Converting enzyme inhibition and kidney function in normotensive diabetic patients with persistent microalbuminuria.

The effects of a long term reduction in blood pressure on the kidney function of normotensive diabetic patients who had persistent microalbuminuria (30-300 mg albumin/24 hours) were studied in two groups of 10 such patients before and during six months of treatment with either 20 mg enalapril or placebo daily. Treatments were assigned randomly in a double blind fashion. Before treatment both groups had similar clinical characteristics, weight, diet, total glycosylated haemoglobin, median albumin excretion rate (enalapril group 124 mg/24 h, placebo group 81 mg/24 h), and mean arterial pressure (enalapril group 100 (SD 8) mm Hg, placebo group 99 (6) mm Hg). During treatment weight, urinary urea excretion, and total glycosylated haemoglobin remained unchanged. The mean arterial pressure decreased in the enalapril group but not in the placebo group (enalapril group 90 (10) mm Hg, placebo group 98 (8) mm Hg). The median albumin excretion rate also fell in the enalapril group but not in the placebo group (enalapril group 37 mg/24 h, placebo group 183 mg/24 h.) The glomerular filtration rate rose in the enalapril group from 130 (23) ml/min/1.73 m2 to 141 (24) ml/min/1.73 m2, and total renal resistances and fractional albumin clearance decreased while fractional albumin clearance increased in the placebo group. These results show that in patients who have diabetes but not hypertension a reduction in blood pressure by inhibition of converting enzyme for six months can reduce persistent microalbuminuria, perhaps by decreasing the intraglomerular pressure.     

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.     

Attenuation of hypotensive effect of propranolol and thiazide diuretics by indomethacin.

The effects of 100 mg indomethacin daily for three weeks on blood pressure and urinary excretion of prostaglandin F2 alpha were studied in a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of two groups of patients with essential hypertension, eight receiving propranolol and seven thiazide diuretics. Compared with placebo, adding indomethacin to the patients'' established antihypertensive treatment increased blood pressure by 14/5 Hg supine and 16/9 mm Hg erect in the patients receiving propranolol, and by 13/9 mm Hg supine and 16/9 mm Hg erect in the patients receiving thiazide diuretics (all p less than or equal to 0.05). The excretion of the major urinary metabolite of prostaglandin F2 alpha was reduced by 67% in the propranolol-treated patients and by 57% in those receiving a thiazide diuretic. Body weight increased by 0 . 8 kg (propranolol) and 1 . 1 kg (thiazide diuretic) when indomethacin was given, but there were no significant changes in creatinine clearance, urinary sodium excretion, or packed cell volume in either treatment group. These results suggest that products formed by the arachidonic acid cyclo-oxygenase contribute to the regulation of blood pressure during treatment with both propranolol and thiazide diuretics. Inhibition of the cyclo-oxygenase with indomethacin partially antagonises the hypotensive effect of these drugs.     

Sensitivity to insulin during treatment with atenolol and metoprolol: a randomised,double blind study of effects on carbohydrate and lipoprotein metabolism in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE--To compare the effects of metoprolol and atenolol on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism and on insulin response to an intravenous glucose load. DESIGN--Randomised, double blind, double dummy, controlled crossover trial. SETTING--University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. PATIENTS--60 Patients with primary hypertension (diastolic blood pressure when resting supine 95-119 mm Hg on at least two occasions during four to six weeks of treatment with placebo) randomised to receive either metoprolol (n = 30) or atenolol (n = 30) during the first treatment period. INTERVENTIONS--Placebo was given for a run in period of four to six weeks. Metoprolol 100 mg twice daily or atenolol 25 mg twice daily was then given for 16 weeks. The two drugs were then exchanged and treatment continued for a further 16 weeks. END POINT--Evaluation of effects of treatment with metoprolol and atenolol on glucose, insulin, and lipid metabolism and glucose disposal mediated by insulin. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS--Reduction of blood pressure was similar and satisfactory during treatment with both drugs. Glucose uptake mediated by insulin was measured during a euglycaemic hyperinsulinaemic clamp to evaluate patients'' sensitivity to insulin. Glucose uptake decreased from 5.6 to 4.5 mg/kg/min when patients were taking metoprolol and from 5.6 to 4.9 mg/kg/min when they were taking atenolol. Both drugs caused a small increase in fasting plasma insulin and blood glucose concentrations and glycated haemoglobin concentration. Despite decreased sensitivity to insulin the increase in insulin concentration in response to an intravenous glucose tolerance test was small, suggesting inhibition of release of insulin. Very low density lipoprotein and low density lipoprotein triglyceride concentrations were increased with both drugs and high density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration was decreased. Low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration was not affected. CONCLUSIONS--Long term use of metoprolol and atenolol causes metabolic abnormalities that may be related to the increased incidence of diabetes in patients with hypertension who are treated pharmacologically. These results may help to explain why the two drugs have failed consistently to reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease in several large scale studies.     

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.     

Additive antianginal effect of verapamil in patients receiving propranolol

Ten men with stable angina pectoris not fully relieved by optimal doses of propranolol (mean 218 mg daily) were given a single oral dose of 120 mg verapamil or a placebo on alternate mornings; the order of treatment was double blind. Patients had trained in a protocol that precipitated angina after three to six minutes of exercise on a bicycle ergometer. On test days, and with continued propranolol treatment, bicycle exercise was performed just before the administration of verapamil or placebo and hourly thereafter for eight hours. Mean exercise tolerance was 118 seconds greater one hour after verapamil than one hour after placebo (p <0·001), and a significant though somewhat diminished difference of 66 seconds was still present at six hours (p <0·01). Verapamil lowered resting systolic blood pressure by 12 mm Hg (p <0·01) without changing heart rate. None of the 10 patients showed adverse effects from the verapamil-propranolol combination.The results of this study suggest that verapamil is a highly effective antianginal supplement to propranolol.     

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.     

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.     

Controlled Trial of Propranolol in Hypertension

A trial of oral propranolol as a hypotensive agent was designed to provide adequate treatment periods. Twenty-eight patients with essential hypertension, with a mean blood pressure of 190/111 mm. Hg, were controlled on 120-320 mg. of propranolol daily. Their mean treated blood pressure was 153/91. They then entered, on a randomized and double-blind basis, a cross-over trial of two 16-week periods, blood pressure being measured fortnightly. Propranolol caused a statistically significant fall in blood pressure when compared with placebo. When propranolol was withdrawn blood pressures rapidly rose to hypertensive levels, though not to untreated levels. No postural hypotension was found, but a small change in blood pressure levels on exercise was noted.