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

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

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 Four patients in the placebo group were withdrawn from the study: control of blood pressure was inadequate in two, one developed breathlessness, and one changed her mind about participating.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.     

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.     

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.     

Atenolol,methyldopa, and chlorthalidone in moderate hypertension.

Combined treatment with low doses of different drugs is widely used for moderate hypertension. The effects of atenolol and methyldopa at two dose levels and in combination at the lower doses were studied in patients with moderate hypertension on continuous treatment with moderate hypertension on continuous treatment with chlorthalidone. The mean reduction in standing blood pressures obtained with atenolol 150 and 300 mg/day was about 27/17 mm Hg and with methyldopa 750 and 1500 mg/day about 28/14 mm Hg. Combined treatment with atenolol 150 mg/day and methyldopa 750 mg/day for four weeks resulted in a reduction of 38/25 mm Hg. No difference was observed between the two doses of methyldopa. The lower dose of atenolol was better than the lower dose of methyldopa in reducing lying and standing diastolic blood pressures. These findings show that in patients on continuous treatment with chlorthalidone the addition of atenolol alone or methyldopa alone or of atenolol and methyldopa in combination is effective in the treatment of moderate hypertension.     

Atenolol and bendrofluazide in hypertension.

The effect of atenolol, a new beta-1-adrenergic receptor blocking agent, was studied in a double-blind cross-over trial in 24 carefully selected hypertensive outpatients. After a four-week run-in period on matching placebo each patient received atenolol 200 mg/day, atenolol 400 mg/day, a combination of atenolol 200/mg day with bendrofluazide 5 mg/day, and bendrofluazide 5 mg/day alone, according to a random sequence. Atenolol at either dose produced a significantly greater reduction in all blood pressure levels except standing systolic pressure than bendrofluazide alone. There was no statistically significant difference between the effects of the two atenolol doses on either blood pressure or pulse rate. The addition of bendrofluazide to atenolol resulted in a further significant lowering of the blood pressure. A significant effect of thiazide on weight was noted. The study shows that atenolol, a cardioselective beta-blocker of similar potency to propranolol in animals but without membrane-stabilizing or partial agonist acitivity, is an effective and well-tolerated hypotensive agent.     

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.     

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.     

Apparent resistance to hypotensive effect of clonidine.

Clonidine failed to reduce the blood pressures of two patients with essential hypertension. On was given 5-4 mg/day and the other 6 mg/day, and their respective peak plasma clonidine concentrations were 26-2 ng/ml and 14-4 ng/ml. Several months after the end of clonidine treatment a single oral dose of 0-3 mg of clonidine produced maximum falls in blood pressure of 30/22 mm Hg and 88/41 mm Hg with peak plasma clonidine concentrations of 1-4 ng/ml and 0-9 ng/ml. Resistance to the hypotensive effect of high doses of clonidine may be due to stimulation of peripheral alpha-adrenoceptors causing vasoconstriction, which maintains a raised blood pressure.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Role of nifedipine in treatment of hypertension.

The efficacy of nifedipine in the treatment of hypertension was assessed in 15 patients whose hypertension continued while being treated with atenolol 100 mg and bendrofluazide 5 mg daily. Nifedipine was added in doses of 10, 20, and 30 mg three times daily in a placebo controlled, double blind trial. One patient was withdrawn from the trial because of severe postural hypotension with the highest dose. Erect and supine blood pressure in the remaining 14 patients were significantly reduced by all doses of nifedipine. The drug was well tolerated but plasma potassium fell by 0.3 mmol(mEq)/1 during treatment (p less than 0.05). Nifedipine is thus effective in the treatment of hypertension but should probably be used in combination with a potassium sparing diuretic.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

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.     

Effects of low dose versus conventional dose thiazide diuretic on insulin action in essential hypertension.

OBJECTIVE--To see whether low dose thiazide diuretics given to patients with essential hypertension might avoid the adverse metabolic consequences seen with conventional doses. DESIGN--Double blind randomised crossover study of two 12 week treatment periods with either low dose (1.25 mg) or conventional dose (5.0 mg) bendrofluazide given after a six week placebo run in period. SETTING--Outpatient clinics serving the greater Belfast area. SUBJECTS--16 white non-diabetic patients (9 male) under 65 with essential hypertension recruited from general practices within the greater Belfast area. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Systolic and diastolic blood pressure and peripheral and hepatic insulin action. RESULTS--One man failed to complete the study. There were no differences between doses in their effects on systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Bendrofluazide 1.25 mg had substantially less effect on serum potassium concentration than the 5.0 mg dose. There were no intertreatment differences in fasting glucose, insulin, cholesterol, and triglyceride concentrations. Bendrofluazide 5.0 mg significantly increased postabsorptive endogenous glucose production compared with baseline (mean 10.9 (SD 1.2) v 10.0 (0.8) mumol/kg/min), whereas bendrofluazide 1.25 mg did not. Postabsorptive endogenous glucose production was significantly higher with bendrofluazide 5.0 mg compared with 1.25 mg (10.9 (1.2) v 9.9 (0.8) mumol/kg/min) but was suppressed to a similar extent after insulin (bendrofluazide 5.0 mg 2.8 (1.5) mumol/kg/min v bendrofluazide 1.25 mg 2.2 (1.5) mumol/kg/min). Exogenous glucose infusion rates required to maintain euglycaemia were not significantly different between doses and were similar to baseline. CONCLUSIONS--Bendrofluazide 1.25 mg is as effective as conventional doses but has less adverse metabolic effect. In contrast with conventional doses, low dose bendrofluazide has no effect on hepatic insulin action. There is no difference between low and conventional doses of bendrofluazide in their effect on peripheral insulin sensitivity.     

Blood pressure and heart rate in patients with ischaemic heart disease receiving nifedipine and propranolol.

A randomised controlled crossover trial was performed to assess the anti-anginal effects of nifedipine and propranolol separately and together. The effects of these treatments on blood pressure and heart rate were assessed at rest and after the cold pressor and mental arithmetic tests. Nifedipine and propranolol together produced the greatest reduction in supine and erect systolic and diastolic blood pressures. Propranolol (480 mg daily) lowered resting systolic/diastolic blood pressures by 7/6 mm Hg and nifedipine (60 mg daily) lowered it by 10/8 mm Hg, while in the erect position the hypotensive effect of these agents averaged 9/8 mm Hg. During the cold pressor test propranolol lowered the maximum pressure by an average of 11/6 mm Hg and nifedipine by 19/10 mm Hg. For the mental arithmetic test, the results were 7/2 mm Hg and 16/7 mm Hg respectively. Propranolol (480 mg daily)reduced supine and erect heart rate by 19 and 25 beats/minute respectively, while nifedipine did not alter heart rate significantly. The favourable haemodynamic responses to nifedipine suggest that it may be of value in the management of hypertension.     

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.