Comparison of diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide for treatment of patients 60 years of age or older with systemic hypertension

This randomized, double-blind, parallel design trial compared the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with either sustained-release diltiazem or hydrochlorothiazide in 61 men greater than or equal to 60 years of age with a diastolic blood pressure (BP) between 94 and 104 mm Hg. BP, heart rate, laboratory blood and urine tests, left ventricular wall thickness and mass index (as estimated by M-mode echocardiography) and rate and type of ventricular premature complexes (via ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring) were determined before, during and after drug treatment. Both drugs produced highly significant (p less than 0.001) decreases in supine and upright systolic and diastolic BP. The mean dosages of diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide used were 260 and 52 mg/day, respectively; at these dosages, 80% of diltiazem-treated versus 71% of hydrochlorothiazide-treated patients achieved goal reduction in BP (supine diastolic BP reduction of greater than 10 mm Hg and to less than 90 mm Hg). Both drugs were well tolerated, although hydrochlorothiazide therapy was associated with multiple biochemical abnormalities not seen with diltiazem. Neither drug affected left ventricular mass index or the rate of ventricular ectopic activity. Diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide are both effective and safe agents when used as monotherapy in older patients with systemic hypertension unaccompanied by other clinically significant cardiovascular disease.     

Failure of antihypertensive therapy with diuretic,beta-blocking and calcium channel-blocking drugs to consistently reverse left ventricular diastolic filling abnormalities

The present protocol was designed to determine whether antihypertensive therapy with hydrochlorothiazide, propranolol or diltiazem, 3 agents with different mechanisms of action and potentially different effects on myocardial function, reverses left ventricular filling abnormalities. Twelve patients with essential hypertension and no evidence of associated cardiovascular disease, either clinically or with noninvasive testing, were evaluated while taking no medication and after 2 months of treatment with these agents. All 3 drugs produced equivalent control of blood pressure (BP), reducing sitting systolic BP by a mean of 20 to 24 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 14 to 16 mm Hg. LV ejection fraction and end-diastolic volume were normal in all but 1 subject (who was excluded from the analyses of LV diastolic filling) and were not altered by drug therapy. The peak LV filling rate and the first-third filling fraction were reduced in the patients with hypertension, but neither of these indexes nor the time to peak filling rate were significantly improved for the group as a whole by any of these medications. Nine of 10 patients whose BP was controlled by diltiazem had increases in their first-third filling fraction, but this change did not reach statistical significance. Our findings suggest that abnormalities of LV diastolic filling are not consistently affected by short-term therapy in patients with chronic, previously treated systemic hypertension.     

Comparison of diltiazem and atenolol in young, physically active men with essential hypertension

The antihypertensive efficacy and effect on maximal exercise performance of diltiazem was evaluated and compared with atenolol in patients specifically selected on the basis of their being young and physically active. Diltiazem (sustained-release preparation, 90 mg twice daily) was administered to 14 patients (aged 33 +/- 2 years) and atenolol (50 mg once daily) to 13 patients (aged 30 +/- 2 years) with essential hypertension in a 16-week randomized, double-blind, parallel study. The 2 drugs had comparable antihypertensive effects at rest, with mean decreases of 18 and 17 mm Hg (p less than 0.001) for supine and standing diastolic blood pressure (BP), respectively, during diltiazem treatment, and mean decreases of 21 and 18 mm Hg (p less than 0.001) during atenolol treatment. During maximal graded exercise testing, systolic BP, diastolic BP, heart rate and heart rate-BP product were significantly reduced by both drugs. However, the reductions in systolic BP, heart rate and heart rate-BP product during exercise were considerably greater (p less than 0.001) with atenolol than with diltiazem. Maximal exercise performance was essentially unchanged with diltiazem and slightly (3%, p less than 0.05) reduced with atenolol. Thus, diltiazem is effective and well-tolerated single therapy for young patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension who lead a physically active life style and compares favorably with atenolol.     

Comparison of acebutolol with and without hydrochlorothiazide versus carvedilol with and without hydrochlorothiazide in black patients with mild to moderate systemic hypertension.

In the present study, we assessed the antihypertensive efficacy of acebutolol 200 mg versus carvedilol 25 mg once daily, given as monotherapy for 3 months to 40 black patients (20 patients in each group, mean age 53+/-10 years, 24 women) with mean blood pressure (BP) during the day >90 and <110 mm Hg. Patients in whom blood pressure could not be controlled took medication, which was increased at 3-month intervals as follows: step 2, acebutolol 200 mg or carvedilol 25 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg once daily; step 3, acebutolol 400 mg or carvedilol 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg once daily. Overall, significant but modest BP reduction was achieved with both beta blockers at 3 months. In the acebutolol group, 24-hour BP decreased from 142+/-15/94+/-7 mm Hg to 138+/-16/89+/-8 mm Hg (p<0.005 for diastolic BP at 3 months vs baseline). Mean day BP decreased from 145+/-15/98+/-5 mm Hg to 140+/-14/93+/-7 mm Hg (p<0.05 for systolic BP and p<0.0005 for diastolic BP at 3 months vs. baseline). In the carvedilol group, 24-hour BP decreased from 145+/-11/93+/-6 to 138+/-16/87+/-9 mm Hg (p<0.05 for systolic BP and p<0.005 for diastolic BP at 3 months vs baseline). Mean day BP decreased from 149+/-10/99+/-5 to 141+/-16/91+/-87 mm Hg (p<0.05 for systolic BP and p<0.0005 for diastolic BP at 3 months vs baseline). At 12 months, most patients required combination therapy to achieve BP control. The control (mean day diastolic BP <90 mm Hg) and response (mean day diastolic BP decrease > or =10 mm Hg) rates at 12 months were 59% and 82% in the acebutolol and 78% and 78% in the carvedilol groups, respectively. In conclusion, acebutolol or carvedilol in combination with hydrochlorothiazide, rather than acebutolol or carvedilol alone, should be considered as first-line antihypertensive therapy in black patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

Antihypertensive efficacy of once daily MK-521, a new nonsulfhydryl angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

The effects of the new nonsulfhydryl-containing oral converting-enzyme inhibitor MK-521 on blood pressure, heart rate, angiotensin-converting enzyme activity, plasma renin activity and plasma aldosterone concentration were assessed in 10 hypertensive patients. After a 2-week no-treatment period, patients received placebo and then 14 days each: MK-521 20 mg once daily, hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg once daily and the latter 2 in combination. During the last day of each treatment, the mean (+/- standard deviation) time-averaged (1- to 12-hour) standing diastolic blood pressure decreased from 106 +/- 8 (placebo) to 95 +/- 10 mm Hg with MK-521, 95 +/- 13 mm Hg with hydrochlorothiazide (p less than 0.05 vs placebo) and 88 +/- 11 mm Hg with the combination (p less than 0.05 vs all other treatments). The antihypertensive effect of MK-521 was maintained 24 hours after dosing. Heart rate did not change significantly after MK-521 treatment. MK-521 caused a marked suppression of converting enzyme activity for over 24 hours; plasma renin activity increased significantly after each active treatment and MK-521 significantly decreased the hydrochlorothiazide-induced elevation of plasma aldosterone concentration. In this short-term trial, MK-521 was well tolerated.     

Comparison of nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide for systemic hypertension

Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy with associated LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction is frequently found in patients with systemic hypertension, and is multifactorial in origin. Although a reduction in blood pressure (BP) often results in regression of hypertrophy, the pharmacologic profiles of the antihypertensive agents used may determine the probability of such regression despite similar levels of BP reduction. Thiazide diuretic drugs may actually result in increased LV hypertrophy; calcium channel antagonists may cause regression or no change. The effects of treatment with nitrendipine (20 mg/day) or hydrochlorothiazide (50 mg/day) were compared in an 8-week, double-blind study of 18 hypertensive subjects aged 50 years or older. BP was significantly reduced (p less than 0.05) by both nitrendipine (from 161 +/- 29/102 +/- 4 to 145 +/- 24/92 +/- 7 mm Hg; mean +/- standard deviation) and hydrochlorothiazide (from 162 +/- 15/105 +/- 6 to 143 +/- 20/95 +/- 7 mm Hg). Plasma norepinephrine increased in the nitrendipine group, from 202 +/- 110 to 332 +/- 220 pg/ml at 8 weeks of therapy and in the hydrochlorothiazide group, from 147 +/- 130 to 313 +/- 277. Plasma renin activity changed from 3.2 +/- 2.4 to 3.5 +/- 2.1 during nitrendipine treatment, but from 2.1 +/- 2.1 to 10.5 +/- 10.8 ng angiotensin l/ml/90 min (p less than 0.05) during treatment with hydrochlorothiazide. Left ventricular mass index did not change significantly with either therapy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Effects of hydrochlorothiazide and diltiazem on reflex vasoconstriction in hypertension

The purpose of our study was to determine the effects of treatment with hydrochlorothiazide (n = 10) or diltiazem (n = 8) on reflex humoral, hemodynamic, and vascular responses to graded lower body negative pressure in subjects with mild to moderate hypertension (supine diastolic pressure, 95-114 mm Hg). All subjects received placebo for 2 to 4 weeks followed by either hydrochlorothiazide (25-50 mg b.i.d.) or diltiazem (120-180 mg b.i.d.) to achieve a reduction in supine diastolic pressure of 10 mm Hg or more and a final pressure below 90 mm Hg. Mean arterial pressure, forearm vascular resistance, plasma norepinephrine, and renin responses to graded lower body negative pressure (-10, -20, -40 mm Hg) and head-up tilt were examined before and after 12 weeks of treatment with either drug. Pretreatment basal values of mean arterial pressure (114 +/- 2 vs 117 +/- 2 mm Hg), forearm vascular resistance (29 +/- 3 vs 35 +/- 7 units), and plasma renin activity (0.7 +/- 0.2 vs 0.6 +/- 0.2 ng angiotensin I/ml/hr) were not significantly different between groups. There were no significant differences in basal plasma norepinephrine or in the increases of norepinephrine in response to lower body negative pressure before and after treatment in either group. Forearm vascular resistance responses to lower body negative pressure were virtually abolished in the diltiazem-treated group but not in the hydrochlorothiazide-treated group despite similar levels of mean arterial pressure and basal forearm vascular resistance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Bucindolol, a beta-adrenoceptor blocker with vasodilatory action: its effect in systemic hypertension

Bucindolol is a newly developed, nonselective beta-adrenergic blocking agent with intrinsic sympathomimetic activity and direct vasodilator properties. In 14 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension, the effects of bucindolol, hydrochlorothiazide and their combination on blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR) and parameters of the renin-aldosterone system were compared with those after placebo. Bucindolol's antihypertensive effect was evident within the first hour after drug administration, maximal at 2 to 3 hours, and lasted for as long as 12 hours. Compared with placebo values (108 +/- 5 mm Hg), both bucindolol (97 +/- 9 mm Hg) and hydrochlorothiazide (99 +/- 10 mm Hg) alone significantly and comparably reduced the 12-hour averaged standing diastolic BP, with the combination resulting in approximately additive effects (91 +/- 9 mm Hg). Although bucindolol alone did not affect HR, it attenuated the hydrochlorothiazide-induced increase in HR. There was a tendency for bucindolol to decrease plasma renin activity. Except for transient postural hypotension in 2 patients, bucindolol was well tolerated.     

Antihypertensive comparison of furosemide with hydrochlorothiazide for black patients.

Furosemide and hydrochlorothiazide were compared for treatment of black patients with mild to moderate hypertension in a randomized, open-label, crossover study design. Hydrochlorothiazide produced a significantly greater fall in mean arterial (24.7 vs 16.0 mm Hg, P less than .01) and diastolic (17.3 vs 10.1 mm Hg, P less than .01) blood pressure (BP) in 16 patients. Addition of methyldopa in nine patients produced a significantly greater fall in mean arterial (38.8 vs 31.9 mm Hg, P less than .05) and diastolic (28.9 vs 23.4 mm Hg, P less than .05) BP with hydrochlorothiazide vs furosemide. Renin status was categorized before and after treatment. Patients with low and normal renin activity were equally responsive to both diuretics. Hydrochlorothiazide caused a greater reduction in plasma potassium (0.26 mEg/L). Serum parathyroid hormone was not chronically elevated with furosemide. In this study, hydrochlorothiazide was more effective than furosemide for treatment of mild to moderate hypertension in black patients; renin classification did not predict diuretic responsiveness.     

Effects of candesartan cilexetil in patients with severe systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators.

The efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the potent angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil were evaluated in 217 adult patients (68% men, 41% black) with severe systemic hypertension on background therapy with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in a 4-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) > or =110 mm Hg during the placebo run-in received HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily for 1 week. Those with sitting diastolic BP >95 mm Hg after the HCTZ run-in were randomized (2:1) to receive candesartan cilexetil 8 mg once daily (n = 141) or placebo (n = 76), plus HCTZ 12.5 mg. After 1 week of double-blind treatment, patients with sitting diastolic BP > or =90 mm Hg were uptitrated to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily or matching placebo, plus HCTZ 12.5 mg; 84% required uptitration. Primary efficacy measurement was a change in trough (24+/-3 hours after treatment) sitting diastolic BP from the end of the HCTZ run-in to double-blind week 4. Mean changes in systolic and diastolic BP were significantly greater with candesartan cilexetil than with placebo, -11.3/-9.1 mm Hg versus -4.1/-3.1 mm Hg, p <0.001/p <0.001, respectively. Patients with higher sitting diastolic BP at the end of the HCTZ run-in tended to have greater decreases in BP (p <0.05). Most patients (53%) receiving candesartan cilexetil were responders (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg or > or =10 mm Hg decrease) and 32% were controlled (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg). Tolerability and safety profiles were similar in the candesartan and placebo groups. In conclusion, candesartan cilexetil 8 to 16 mg once daily was an effective and well-tolerated therapy for lowering BP when added to HCTZ 12.5 mg in a diverse population of patients with severe systemic hypertension in the United States.     

Diuretics versus calcium-channel blockers in systemic hypertension: a preliminary multicenter experience with hydrochlorothiazide and sustained-release diltiazem

The safety and efficacy of sustained-release diltiazem 120 to 180 mg, 2 times a day, were compared with hydrochlorothiazide 25 to 50 mg, 2 times a day, and the combination of diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide in 56 patients with mild to moderate hypertension (supine diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 114 mm Hg) using a placebo-controlled, parallel-design protocol. Data from an additional 21 patients were evaluated for safety only. The data reported herein represent the preliminary experience from a larger 200-patient multicenter study. All patients received placebo for 4 weeks, followed by either hydrochlorothiazide or diltiazem titrated to achieve a diastolic blood pressure reduction of greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg to reach a goal supine diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg. Patients not achieving the treatment goal received hydrochlorothiazide plus diltiazem. At week 14, on maintenance monotherapy, diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide produced comparable reductions in blood pressure from placebo baseline (160.3 +/- 24.3/101.7 +/- 5.5 to 145.2 +/- 24.1/89.8 +/- 7.4 mm Hg with diltiazem, 156.0 +/- 15.6/103.7 +/- 4.7 to 134.1 +/- 12.5/89.2 +/- 9.5 mm Hg with hydrochlorothiazide, p less than 0.001 for both). Diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide achieved goal blood pressure in 42% and 45% of patients, respectively. The effects in responders were sustained for 6 months. In patients who did not achieve the treatment goal, 63% responded to diltiazem plus hydrochlorothiazide.No clinically significant postural hypotension was observed on any regimen. Heart rate was slightly lower with diltiazem than with hydrochlorothiazide. Adverse effects were minimal with diltiazem, hydrochlorothiazide and diltiazem plus hydrochlorothiazide but more hypokalemia occurred with hydrochlorothiazide.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Calcium entry blockers for systemic hypertension

Calcium entry blockers appear to be effective antihypertensive agents in both young and older patients. Studies comparing diltiazem and placebo, diltiazem and propranolol, and diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide indicate that this calcium entry blocker is more effective than placebo, equally effective as the beta-adrenergic inhibitors at least in short-term studies, but not as effective in lowering systolic blood pressure (BP) when compared with hydrochlorothiazide (diastolic BP -11.5 mm Hg with diltiazem vs -12.2 mm Hg with hydrochlorothiazide; systolic BP -12.2 mm Hg with diltiazem vs -20.0 mm Hg with hydrochlorothiazide). Combination therapy with diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide proved effective in a high percentage of mono-therapy nonresponders. The most common adverse reactions to diltiazem included headaches, dizziness and edema. The exact place of calcium entry blockers in therapy as initial or step-2 therapy with a diuretic in hypertension must be determined by additional long-term experience in large numbers of patients.     

Antihypertensive efficacy,safety, and tolerability of the oral direct renin inhibitor aliskiren in patients with hypertension: a pooled analysis

The antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren were assessed in a pooled analysis of data from seven randomized, multicenter studies. Data were available for 7,045 patients (mean age 52.5 to 59.8 years, 50.2 to 72.5% men) with mild-to-moderate hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [msDBP] 95 to 109 mm Hg) over treatment durations of 6 to 8 weeks. In placebo-controlled trials, aliskiren reduced mean sitting systolic blood pressure/msDBP from baseline by 8.6 to 12.1/7.2 to 10.3 mm Hg (75 mg), 8.7 to 13.0/7.8 to 10.3 mm Hg (150 mg), 14.1 to 15.8/10.3 to 12.3 mm Hg (300 mg), and 15.7 to 15.8/11.5 to 12.5 mm Hg (600 mg), compared with 2.9 to 10.0/3.3 to 8.6 mm Hg for placebo. Aliskiren demonstrated comparable efficacy in men and women, in patients aged <65 years or ≥65 years, and lowered blood pressure (BP) effectively in all racial subgroups. Combination of aliskiren 150 mg or 300 mg with ramipril, amlodipine, or hydrochlorothiazide provided significant additional BP reductions compared with the respective monotherapies. The overall incidence of adverse events with aliskiren monotherapy was similar to placebo (39.8% vs. 40.2%, respectively). The incidence of diarrhea with aliskiren was higher than placebo due to a significantly higher rate with aliskiren 600 mg (P < .0001 vs. placebo). In conclusion, aliskiren 150 mg or 300 mg provides highly effective and consistent BP lowering with placebo-like tolerability in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.     

Comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and sustained-release diltiazem for mild-to-moderate systemic hypertension

The safety and efficacy of sustained-release diltiazem, 120 to 180 mg twice daily, was compared with those of hydrochlorothiazide, 25 to 50 mg twice daily, in 207 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (supine diastolic blood pressure [BP] 95 to 114 mm Hg) using a baseline, placebo, parallel-design study protocol. All patients received placebo for 2 to 4 weeks, followed by either study drug during the double-blind phase, titrated over 8 weeks to achieve a goal of supine diastolic BP reduction of at least 10 mm Hg and/or a diastolic BP of less than 90 mm Hg. Patients not achieving the treatment goal with either drug alone received the other drug in combination. Both drugs produced significant decreases in supine and upright BP throughout the 26-week study. The magnitude of decrease in mean supine diastolic BP was similar for both drugs as monotherapy at week 14 (-11.4 and -12.1 mm Hg, respectively). Hydrochlorothiazide produced significantly greater reductions at week 14 in mean supine systolic BP than sustained-release diltiazem (-19.5 and -12.7 mm Hg, respectively). The difference in mean supine diastolic BP reduction with the 2 drugs diminished when hydrochlorothiazide (50 mg/day) was compared with sustained-release diltiazem. The BP effects were sustained for 6 months with both drugs. The 2 drugs appeared to lower BP more in patients older than 60 years and more in black than in white patients. The combination of the 2 drugs decreased supine diastolic BP to goal levels in about 56% of the patients not achieving goal with either drug alone. Adverse effects were minimal with either drug alone and in combination, except for hypokalemia, which increased with thiazide alone and in combination.     

Double-blind comparison of captopril and enalapril in mild to moderate hypertension

To compare the antihypertensive and humoral effects of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors captopril and enalapril, 20 patients with essential hypertension, not receiving treatment for 2 weeks and consuming a prescribed sodium ion intake, were randomly assigned to two parallel, double-blind treatment groups with stratification based on race and untreated seated diastolic blood pressure. These groups received a placebo (day -1) followed by either captopril, 200 mg every 12 hours (n = 9), or enalapril maleate, 20 mg every 12 hours (n = 11), alone (days 1 to 14) and then with hydrochlorothiazide, 25 mg every 12 hours (days 16 to 28). Captopril and enalapril were coadministered alone (day 15) and with hydrochlorothiazide (day 29) to assess whether further decreases in blood pressure would occur. Captopril and enalapril alone caused comparable decreases (p less than 0.05) in the mean 12 hour time-averaged seated diastolic blood pressure from values on day -1 (placebo), on day 1 (11 and 9 mm Hg, respectively) and day 14 (8 and 7 mm Hg, respectively). The addition of hydrochlorothiazide further decreased (p less than 0.05) blood pressure in each group (7 and 8 mm Hg, respectively) from values on day 14. Combined use of captopril and enalapril did not result in further reduction. Coupled with the comparable changes observed in each treatment group in serum angiotensin-converting enzyme activity, plasma renin activity and plasma aldosterone concentration, these data support the view that captopril and enalapril have similar antihypertensive effects and mechanisms.     

A comparison of the tolerability of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren and lisinopril in patients with severe hypertension

Patients with severe hypertension (>180/110 mm Hg) require large blood pressure (BP) reductions to reach recommended treatment goals (<140/90 mm Hg) and usually require combination therapy to do so. This 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the tolerability and antihypertensive efficacy of the novel direct renin inhibitor aliskiren with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril in patients with severe hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP)>or=105 mm Hg and <120 mm Hg). In all, 183 patients were randomized (2:1) to aliskiren 150 mg (n=125) or lisinopril 20 mg (n=58) with dose titration (to aliskiren 300 mg or lisinopril 40 mg) and subsequent addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) if additional BP control was required. Aliskiren-based treatment (ALI) was similar to lisinopril-based treatment (LIS) with respect to the proportion of patients reporting an adverse event (AE; ALI 32.8%; LIS 29.3%) or discontinuing treatment due to AEs (ALI 3.2%; LIS 3.4%). The most frequently reported AEs in both groups were headache, nasopharyngitis and dizziness. At end point, ALI showed similar mean reductions from baseline to LIS in msDBP (ALI -18.5 mm Hg vs LIS -20.1 mm Hg; mean treatment difference 1.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.0, 4.4)) and mean sitting systolic blood pressure (ALI -20.0 mm Hg vs LIS -22.3 mm Hg; mean treatment difference 2.8 mm Hg (95% CI -1.7, 7.4)). Responder rates (msDBP<90 mm Hg and/or reduction from baseline>or=10 mm Hg) were 81.5% with ALI and 87.9% with LIS. Approximately half of patients required the addition of HCTZ to achieve BP control (ALI 53.6%; LIS 44.8%). In conclusion, ALI alone, or in combination with HCTZ, exhibits similar tolerability and antihypertensive efficacy to LIS alone, or in combination with HCTZ, in patients with severe hypertension.     

Efficacy and safety of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide in patients with severe hypertension

This 12-week, open-label, multicenter study assessed the efficacy and safety of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), alone or in combination with other antihypertensive agents, in the treatment of patients with severe systemic hypertension. Treatment began with once-daily losartan/HCTZ 50/12.5 mg. The dose was increased to 100/25 mg, if required, to achieve blood pressure (BP) control (sitting diastolic BP <95 mm Hg); felodipine (extended release) and/or atenolol could be added if target sitting diastolic BP was not achieved with losartan/HCTZ alone. Mean sitting systolic BP of the 131 patients enrolled was 165.3 mm Hg at baseline and 139.8 mm Hg at final visit (reduction -25.4 mm Hg; p < or =0.01). Mean sitting diastolic BP was 111.9 mm Hg at baseline and 93.6 mm Hg at final visit (reduction -18.4 mm Hg; p < or =0.01). After 2 weeks of treatment, 63.8% of patients (83 of 130) were taking losartan/HCTZ 50/12.5 mg alone. By the final visit, one third of patients (35.1%; 46/131) were still only taking losartan/HCTZ. Most patients (48.1%; 63 of 131) were taking losartan/HCTZ 100/25 mg plus felodipine (extended release) at the final visit. Losartan/HCTZ was well tolerated. Drug-related adverse experiences occurred in 30 patients (22.9%). Only 2 patients (1.5%) had a serious adverse experience; 6 patients (4.6%) discontinued the drug because of an adverse experience. In conclusion, losartan/ HCTZ, alone or as part of a regimen with other standard antihypertensive agents, is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with severe hypertension.     

Twice-daily administration of oral verapamil in the treatment of essential hypertension

The antihypertensive effect of twice-daily administration of verapamil hydrochloride was evaluated in 21 adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Following four weeks of placebo therapy, verapamil was given for four weeks with a treatment goal of sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) of less than 90 mm Hg, or to a maximum dose of 160 mg twice daily. Sitting and standing BPs, heart rate, and verapamil plasma levels were determined weekly, ten to 12 hours post dose. At the maximal dose (mean, 154 +/- 19.2 mg), heart rate was not affected, side effects were minimal, and sitting diastolic BP was significantly reduced from placebo baseline, with 12 of 21 patients having a fall in sitting diastolic BP of 10 mm Hg or more or less than 90 mm Hg. A trough verapamil plasma level of greater than 80 ng/mL was associated with a good hypotensive response. These data indicate the safety and utility of twice-daily verapamil administration for the treatment of essential hypertension and suggest the value of obtaining verapamil plasma levels as a guide to dosage determination.     

Ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure monitoring in patients with resistant hypertension

The aim of the study was to assess the usefulness of 24-hour blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) monitoring in patients with "resistant" hypertension. 30 patients (44.1 +/- 9.9 years) with diastolic BP 100 mm Hg or more in spite of treatment with three or more antihypertensive drugs were studied. Ambulatory recording of BP and HR was performed by means of Del Mar Avionics monitoring system 9000. Mean recording time was 21.5 hours and mean number of measurements during one recording--56.7. Mean ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP values were significantly lower than mean value of three casual measurements (146.0 +/- 24.6 vs 171.5 +/- 21.2 mm Hg for systolic and 97.2 +/- 11.3 vs 110.4 +/- 7.5 mm Hg for diastolic BP p less than 0.01) In 14 (46.6%) systolic BP and in 10 patients (33.3%) diastolic BP were normal. The patients with normal and abnormal ambulatory BP recordings did not differ in regard to age and mean clinic BP levels. However, patients with abnormal ambulatory BP recordings were more often overweight and showed a greater frequency of left ventricular hypertrophy and family history of hypertension and its complications. The results of the study show that ambulatory BP monitoring may be of value in assessing the response to antihypertensive treatment in patients with so called resistant hypertension as judged on the basis of clinic pressure.     

Effects of diltiazem on hormonal and hemodynamic responses to lower body negative pressure and tilt in patients with mild to moderate systemic hypertension

Mean arterial blood pressure, forearm vascular resistance, plasma norepinephrine, plasma renin activity and aldosterone responses to graded lower body negative pressure and tilt at 80 degrees were examined in 10 men with mild to moderate essential hypertension before and after 12 weeks of diltiazem (240 to 360 mg/day) therapy. Diltiazem therapy lowered basal supine systolic and diastolic blood pressures without affecting basal heart rate. Mean arterial blood pressure and forearm vascular resistance were decreased from 114 +/- 1.5 to 105 +/- 1 mm Hg, p less than 0.01 and from 29.3 +/- 3.5 to 18.9 +/- 2.1 units, p less than 0.01, respectively. Diltiazem therapy had no effect on basal supine levels of norepinephrine, plasma renin activity or aldosterone, nor on the responses of these hormones to lower body negative pressure. Diltiazem did decrease the forearm vascular resistance responses to lower body negative pressure and tilt. Diltiazem abolished an orthostatic increase (10 +/- 0.3 mm Hg) in mean arterial blood pressure and this was associated with a greater plasma norepinephrine response to tilt. These results suggest that diltiazem decreases vascular resistance through a reduction in the postjunctional effects of norepinephrine on vascular smooth muscle.