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.     

Propranolol in hypertension: a dose-response study.

The effect of propranolol was studied in a double-blind crossover trial in 24 carefully selected hypertensive outpatients. Each patient received propranolol 60 mg/day, 120 mg/day, 240 mg/day, and placebo for four weeks each according to a randomised sequence. Propranolol 60 mg/day was no better than placebo in reducing blood pressure. The effects of propranolol 120 mg/day and 240 mg/day were not significantly different. Both doses reduced lying blood pressure by about 20/10 mm Hg from an initial level of 173/104 mm Hg. No difference was detected between the effects of the different doses of propranolol and placebo on weight or on the occurrence of adverse reactions.     

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

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

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.     

Double-blind comparison of tolamolol,propranolol, practolol,and placebo in the treatment of angina pectoris.

Forty-two patients with angina pectoris have completed a randomized, double-blind trial comparing tolamolol 100 mg and 200 mg with propranolol 80 mg, practolol 100 mg, and placebo, all given three times a day. Tolamolol 200 mg thrice daily was found to be equivalent to propranolol 80 mg thrice daily in anti-anginal efficacy. Anginal attack rates and trinitrin consumption were significantly reduced by all active treatments as compared with the placebo but tolamolol and propranolol were the most effective. Tolamolol 200 mg thrice daily was most effective in reducing blood pressure, while propranolol was most effective in reducing the resting heart rate. All treatments except the placebo significantly increased the amount of exercise which could be performed before angina appeared (exercise work), while tolamolol 200 mg thrice daily significantly reduced Robinson''s index when compared with all other active agents. The degree of S-T segment depression induced by exercise was significantly lessened by both tolamolol and propranolol but not by practolol or placebo. There was no difference in patient preference between tolamolol and propranolol but tolamolol at both dose levels was preferred to practolol. Both tolamolol and propranolol are potent adrenergic beta-receptor antagonists and equal in anti-anginal efficacy but tolamolol has the advantage of being cardioselective. It is superior to practolol.     

Renin concentrations and effects of propranolol and spironolactone in patients with hypertension.

In a crossover study 32 patients with hypertension were randomly allocated to treatment with spironolactone 200 mg/day for two months, propranolol 320 mg/day for two months, and a combination of both drugs at half the dose. Between the treatments placebo was given for two months. Both spironolactone and propranolol lowered the blood pressure significantly in both positions. The initial plasma renin activity (PRA) levels ranged from 0-4 to 5-0 mug angiotensin I l-1 h-1, and there was a close correlation between these levels and the effects of the drugs: with increasing PRA the response to propranolol was better while the opposite was true for spironolactone. Spironolactone reduced the blood pressure more at eight than at four weeks, while no such difference could be shown for propranolol. Spironolactone and propranolol together decreased the blood pressure still further irrespective of the initial PRA. All patients achieved a normal supine blood pressure.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

Atenolol in essential hypertension during pregnancy.

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

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.     

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.     

Hypotensive Action and Side Effects of Clonidine-Chlorthalidone and Methyldopa-Chlorthalidone in Treatment of Hypertension

In an open, randomized, cross-over study the hypotensive action and side effects of clonidine-chlorthalidone and methyldopa-chlorthalidone combinations were compared. The diastolic morning blood pressure could be reduced to 95 mm. Hg or below in significantly more patients with clonidine than with methyldopa. Side effects, however, were more commonly encountered during the clonidine than during the methyldopa phase.     

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.     

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.     

Pindolol acts as beta-adrenoceptor agonist in orthostatic hypotension: therapeutic implications.

Three bedridden patients with severe orthostatic hypotension due to chronic autonomic failure were treated with pindolol (15 mg/day), a beta-adrenoceptor antagonist with partial agonist activity. While taking this drug the patients were free of orthostatic symptoms: they could walk, and standing blood pressure was maintained above 90/50 mm Hg. Supine heart rate rose during treatment by 12-21 beats/minute, and stroke volume and cardiac output by 12-24 ml and 1.5-3.1 l/min respectively. Supine blood pressure rose by 21-68 mm Hg systolic and 14-49 mm Hg diastolic. Pindolol 15 mg/day was therapeutically effective in these three patients with severe orthostatic hypotension due to chronic autonomic failure. Further studies in a larger series of patients are needed to confirm this result.     

Blood pressure reduction in elderly: a randomised controlled trial of methyldopa.

A total of 123 out of 549 elderly residents of local authority welfare homes in Nottinghamshire were found at screening to have a standing or lying diastolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or more. These 123 subjects were randomly allocated to simple observation or to treatment with methyldopa. The cumulative mortality was similar in the observed and treated groups and in the normotensive group from which the subjects had been separated. Thus moderate hypertension, whether treated or not, was not a major risk predictor in the elderly population studied.     

Clinical Evaluation of Practolol,a New Cardioselective Beta-blocking Agent in Angina Pectoris

In a controlled double-blind study practolol, a new cardioselective beta-blocking drug, was given to 15 patients with angina pectoris, and compared with propranolol 80 mg. q.d.s. The dose of practolol ranged from 200 to 600 mg.b.d. and was decided by initial open titration in individual patients. Though practolol did not influence the incidence of angina or glyceryl trinitrate consumption, it increased the duration of exercise possible in exercise tests and reduced the amount of ischaemic S—T depression in the radiocardiogram during exercise. Propranolol reduced the incidence of angina and, in the exercise tests, increased the amount and duration of exercise but did not affect the degree of S—T depression. Unlike propranolol, practolol did not produce any adverse effects on bronchial smooth muscle. Hence it is concluded that practolol is an effective drug in treating angina, and in the dosage used is of potential value in patients with asthmatic bronchitis and angina. It should, however, be used cautiously in anginal patients with heart failure.     

Interaction between Clonidine and Desipramine in Man

Interaction between the tricyclic antidepressant desipramine and the antihypertensive agent clonidine has been investigated in five hypertensive patients in a double-blind placebo controlled study. Introduction of the tricyclic antidepressant led to loss of blood pressure control in four of the patients. The average blood pressure rise in the desipramine period compared with the placebo period was 22/15 mm Hg in the lying position and 12/11 mm Hg standing. Thus addition of a tricyclic antidepressant may lead to loss of blood pressure control in a hypertensive patient treated with clonidine.