Efficacy of a once-daily formulation of carvedilol for the treatment of hypertension

Beta-blockers with pharmacologic effects that differ from conventional agents might add to antihypertensive treatment options. This study evaluated a new once-daily formulation of the beta-/alpha1-blocker, carvedilol controlled-release (CR), in hypertensive patients off treatment or while still taking up to 2 (non-beta-blocker) agents. After a 4-week run-in phase, patients were randomized either to placebo (n=76) or carvedilol CR 20 mg (n=82), 40 mg (n=76), or 80 mg (n=86) once daily. After 6 weeks of treatment, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was repeated to measure the primary end point of changes in mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure. During treatment, 24-hour diastolic blood pressure fell in the placebo and carvedilol CR 20-mg, 40-mg, and 80-mg groups by (mean +/- SE) 0.4+/-0.9, 4.4+/-0.9, 7.9+/-0.9, and 9.6+/-0.9 mm Hg, respectively (P< or =.001, trend test for all carvedilol CR doses with placebo). Corresponding 24-hour systolic blood pressure changes were 0.6+/-1.4, 6.8+/-1.3, 10.1+/-1.4, and 12.5+/-1.3 mm Hg, respectively (P< or =.001, trend test). Diastolic blood pressure trough-to-peak ratios (placebo-corrected) based on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (trough = mean of 20- to 24-hour post-dose readings; peak = mean of 3- to 7-hour post-dose readings) for 20-mg, 40-mg, and 80-mg doses were 0.73, 0.64, and 0.65, respectively. Adverse events, including clinical chemistry values, were similar in the drug-treated and placebo groups. Carvedilol CR has a clinically meaningful defined dose-dependent antihypertensive effect that persists throughout a 24-hour period.     

The effect of a losartan-based treatment regimen on isolated systolic hypertension

This study was conducted to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability, over 12 weeks, of a losartan-based treatment regimen and placebo in patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Three hundred eight patients ≥35 years of age with isolated systolic hypertension, defined as trough sitting blood pressure between 140 and 200 mm Hg systolic and between 70 and 89 mm Hg diastolic, were randomized to losartan 50 mg (n=157) or placebo (n=151) once daily, with titration as necessary to achieve a goal trough sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mm Hg. At baseline, mean trough sitting SBP was 140–159 mm Hg in 20.5% of patients, 160–179 mm Hg in 62.7%, and 180–200 mm Hg in 16.9%, and was similar in the two groups (losartan, 165.3 mm Hg; placebo, 166.1 mm Hg). At 12 weeks, mean trough sitting SBP decreased significantly (p<0.001) in both the losartan-based treatment group (by 19.2 mm Hg) and in the placebo group (by 7.6 mm Hg). The reduction in sitting SBP was significantly greater for losartan than placebo (−11.6 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, −14.8 to −8.4). In patients with isolated systolic hypertension, a once-daily losartan-based treatment regimen significantly lowered SBP. The losartan-based regimen exhibited antihypertensive efficacy that was superior to that of placebo, with a similar tolerability profile.     

Controlled-release doxazosin as combination therapy in hypertension: the GATES study

Doxazosin gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) or placebo was added to the antihypertensive therapy of uncontrolled hypertensive patients in a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients received doxazosin GITS 4 mg/d (n=89) or placebo (n=86) for 6 weeks in addition to entry antihypertensive medication. Doxazosin GITS was increased to 8 mg/d after 2 or 4 weeks if patients did not respond (sitting blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg and 10/10-mm Hg decrease from baseline). Reductions from baseline in sitting and standing blood pressures were greater with doxazosin GITS than placebo at all time points (p相似文献   

Treatment of essential hypertension with PN 200-110 (isradipine)

The safety and antihypertensive efficacy of PN 200-110 (isradipine), a novel calcium antagonist, are discussed in a preliminary report of double-blind, multicenter, controlled, phase III clinical trials for essential hypertension. Patients who qualified for entry after a 3 week placebo-washout period were enrolled in 1 of 5 studies; 2 studies were placebo controlled; 3 studies evaluated PN 200-110 against 1 of 3 active controls: hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) propranolol or prazosin. A separate study assessing the effects of PN 200-110 in combination with HCTZ versus propranolol plus HCTZ is also discussed. Compared with placebo, PN 200-110 decreased mean supine systolic and diastolic blood pressures by 20/16 mm Hg versus 4/6 mm Hg. Compared with placebo and active control drugs, PN 200-110 normalized supine diastolic blood pressure to less than or equal to 90 mm Hg in 72% of patients, versus 13% in the placebo group, 74% in the HCTZ group, 45% in the propranolol group and 69% in the prazosin group. In the ability to decrease diastolic blood pressure by greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg, PN 200-110 compared favorably to prazosin (81% vs 81%), and was superior to HCTZ (81% vs 61%) and propranolol (81% vs 36%). In combination with HCTZ, PN 200-110 exerted as great an antihypertensive effect as propranolol plus HCTZ. Long-term therapy with PN 200-110 was also effective. Supine systolic and diastolic blood pressures decreased a mean of 15/13 mm Hg at 3 months, and 18/20 mm Hg at 12 months. PN 200-110 is well tolerated with relatively few adverse effects reported.     

Antihypertensive effect of diltiazem in a slow-release formulation for mild to moderate essential hypertension

The antihypertensive efficacy and frequency of adverse reactions following administration of diltiazem in a new slow-release formulation were compared with placebo in 34 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. After 6 weeks of treatment with diltiazem (240 or 360 mg/day), average supine blood pressure (BP) decreased from 165 +/- 21/101 +/- 5 mm Hg at baseline to 152 +/- 16/93 +/- 4 mm Hg compared with 160 +/- 19/100 +/- 7 mm Hg with placebo (p less than 0.01/p less than 0.001). Standing BP decreased from 162 +/- 20/107 +/- 6 mm Hg at baseline to 150 +/- 14/101 +/- 5 mm Hg compared to 159 +/- 18/107 +/- 8 mm Hg with placebo (p less than 0.01/p less than 0.001). The supine heart rate after diltiazem was 65 +/- 7 beats/min and after placebo 69 +/- 9 beats/min (p less than 0.01). There were no hematologic side effects. Only minor differences between diltiazem and placebo were observed in some of the biochemical laboratory values. Four patients were withdrawn due to side effects during treatment with diltiazem and 2 with placebo. Diltiazem in a slow-release formulation given twice a day lowered blood pressure significantly as monotherapy in patients with mild to moderate hypertension and was well tolerated.     

Pharmacokinetics of propranolol after single and multiple dosing with sustained release propranolol or propranolol CR (innopran XL) , a new chronotherapeutic formulation

Blood pressure rises rapidly upon waking and may be responsible, in part, for the increased incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke during the morning hours. Current formulations and dosing of antihypertensive drugs do not provide maximum coverage during this vulnerable period. This study was performed to demonstrate that propranolol CR (Innopran XL), a novel chronotherapeutic formulation of propranolol designed for nighttime dosing, has appropriate pharmacokinetics to provide maximum cardioprotective effect in the morning. Pharmacokinetics of propranolol CR and sustained-release propranolol after single and multiple doses were determined in normal male volunteers in this open-label, 2-period crossover study. The drugs were dosed in the evening and serial blood samples were taken for determination of propranolol concentration the next 24 to 72 hours. After a single 160-mg dose of propranolol CR administered at 10 pm, absorption was delayed by about 4 hours, after which plasma concentration rose steadily, reaching a peak at about 10:00 am. In contrast, after dosing with sustained release propranolol, plasma levels of propranolol began to rise almost immediately, reaching a plateau between 4:00 am and 10:00 am. During multiple dosing, steady-state trough plasma concentrations were achieved after 2 days with either drug. After the final dose, the plasma profiles of both drugs were similar to those observed in the single-dose study. Bioavailability was similar for both formulations of propranolol. Propranolol CR exhibited appropriate pharmacokinetics for a chronotherapeutic approach to the treatment of hypertension.     

Initial Combination Therapy With Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide for Hypertension: An Analysis of the Relationship Between Baseline Blood Pressure and the Need for Combination Therapy

Hypertension treatment guidelines recommend initiating 2-drug therapy whenever blood pressure (BP) is ≥20 mm Hg systolic or ≥10 mm Hg diastolic above goal. This post hoc pooled analysis of 2 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled forced-titration studies in 1235 patients with moderate and severe hypertension examined how baseline BP levels relate to the need for combination therapy by comparing the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of once-daily fixed-dose irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 300/25 mg compared with irbesartan 300-mg or HCTZ 25-mg monotherapies. In study 1, patients with severe hypertension (seated diastolic BP [SeDBP] ≥110 mm Hg) were treated for 7 weeks with irbesartan or irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy, with forced-titration after week 1. In study 2, patients with moderate hypertension (seated systolic BP [SeSBP] 160–180 mm Hg or SeDBP 100–110 mm Hg) were treated for 12 weeks with irbesartan/HCTZ, irbesartan monotherapy, or HCTZ monotherapy, with forced-titration after week 2. The relationship between baseline BP and the likelihood of achieving BP goals (SeSBP <140 mm Hg or SeDBP <90 mm Hg; SeSBP <130 mm Hg or SeDBP <80 mm Hg) as well as the antihypertensive response was evaluated at week 7/8. The need for combination therapy increased with increasing baseline BP and lower BP goals across the range of BP levels studied, with a comparable adverse effect profile to monotherapy. These results suggest that the likelihood of achieving an early BP goal for a given BP severity should be considered when choosing initial combination therapy vs monotherapy.     

Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of potassium chloride in the treatment of mild hypertension

Epidemiological and experimental data suggest blood pressure-lowering effects of dietary potassium. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was used to assess blood pressure response to orally administered potassium, 120 mEq/day, and to placebo in 101 adults with mild hypertension. Blood pressure was measured with a random-zero sphygmomanometer every 2 weeks of this 8-week trial. Systolic blood pressure in the potassium-treated group decreased by 6.4 +/- 13.7 (SD) mm Hg (p less than or equal to 0.025) compared with 0.11 +/- 13.0 mm Hg in the placebo-treated group (p = 0.96). Diastolic blood pressure in the potassium-treated group decreased by 4.1 +/- 8.3 mm Hg (p less than or equal to 0.05) compared with a 1.6 +/- 6.5 mm Hg decrease in placebo-treated subjects (p = 0.09). Baseline blood pressure of potassium-treated subjects was unexpectedly higher than that of controls. After correcting for baseline variation, blood pressure still decreased 3.4/1.8 mm Hg more in potassium recipients than in placebo recipients (p = 0.14 and 0.24, respectively). Blood pressure decreased by 19/13 mm Hg in five blacks taking potassium versus a 1/0 mm Hg increase in seven blacks taking placebo. Compliance with the potassium regimen was 91.5% by pill count; only one subject discontinued treatment because of side effects. In conclusion, 120 mEq/day of microencapsulated potassium chloride was well tolerated in adults with mild hypertension. An antihypertensive effect of potassium cannot be ruled out despite the fact that there was no statistically significant difference between potassium-treated and placebo-treated subjects after adjustment for differences in baseline blood pressure.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind dose-response evaluation of step-2 guanfacine versus placebo in mild to moderate hypertension

Guanfacine, an alpha-adrenoceptor agonist, may exhibit distinct dose-related curves for efficacy and adverse effects in the step-2 therapy of essential hypertension. To determine the lowest clinically effective safe dose, 462 newly or previously diagnosed subjects were admitted to a 5-week prerandomization phase at 8 centers. Patients were weaned from any current antihypertensive drugs and placed on 25-mg chlorthalidone, daily, in the morning. At the end of the 5-week weaning period, 362 patients with seated diastolic blood pressures (BPs) between 95 and 114 mm Hg qualified for the 12-week postrandomization phase. Subjects were randomized to receive either an indistinguishable placebo or 0.5, 1, 2 or 3 mg of guanfacine. Chlorthalidone was changed to bedtime administration and taken with the study medications. Guanfacine was started at the lowest dose in all subjects and increased (if scheduled, according to the randomization code) to the next higher dose at biweekly intervals. Of the 362 randomized patients, 278 completed the study. The 1-mg guanfacine dosage produced a 14/13 mm Hg decrease in BP (p less than 0.0125 compared with placebo). Doses of guanfacine at 2 and 3 mg/day were not more effective than the 1 mg/day dose; 0.5 mg/day was not better than placebo. There was an increase in the frequency of side effects possibly or probably associated with 2 and 3 mg/day guanfacine. Only 3.2% of the patients in the 1 mg/day group dropped out of the study because of side effects. We conclude that when added to a diuretic, 1 mg/day guanfacine at bedtime is the lowest safe and therapeutically effective dose.     

Dose-response efficacy of valsartan, a new angiotensin II receptor blocker.

OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy and tolerability of a range of valsartan doses in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. DESIGN: 122 adult out-patients were randomised in equal numbers to receive valsartan 10 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg, 160 mg or placebo once daily (OD) for 4 weeks in this multicentre, double-blind, fixed-dose, parallel trial. Patients were assessed at 0, 2 and 4 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in trough mean supine diastolic blood pressure (MSuDBP). Other variables included change from baseline in trough mean supine systolic blood pressure (MSuSBP), responder rates and trough/peak ratio. RESULTS: All treatments significantly reduced MSuDBP and MSuSBP at 4-week end-point compared to baseline (P < 0.001). The magnitude of blood pressure lowering was greater with increasing doses of valsartan (least square mean change from baseline for placebo, valsartan 10 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg, 160 mg respectively: MSuDBP -4.4 mm Hg, -4.9 mm Hg, -6.5 mm Hg, -8.2 mm Hg, -9.1 mm Hg; MSuSBP -1.3 mm Hg, -3.6 mm Hg, -7.0 mm Hg, -11.1 mm Hg, -11.9 mm Hg). A fitted quadratic curve, to predict relationship between dose and change from baseline in trough MSuDBP, indicated a positive dose response. Responder rates were 16%, 24%, 33%, 46%, 54% for placebo, valsartan 10 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg, 160 mg respectively, which also indicated a positive dose response in the dose range of 10 mg to 160 mg. Greater than 50% of the antihypertensive effect measured at peak persisted at trough for each of the four active treatment groups, confirming efficacy over a 24-h period. No dose-related adverse experiences were observed, with overall incidence (regardless of relationship to trial medication) of 44% with placebo and 44%, 36%, 22%, 21% for valsartan 10 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg, 160 mg respectively. The most common adverse experience reported was headache which occurred most frequently with placebo (12%). No trial drug-related cough was observed. Treatment with valsartan did not produce clinically significant orthostatic changes in diastolic or systolic blood pressure. One case of symptomatic orthostatic hypotension was observed on placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this trial show valsartan to effectively lower blood pressure in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, and demonstrate that the reduction in blood pressure increases with increasing dose levels.     

Dilevalol compared with propranolol and placebo for systemic hypertension

Dilevalol is a new antihypertensive agent that is both a vasodilator, through its beta 2-agonist action, and a nonselective beta antagonist. Two multicenter, double-blind studies were performed: study 1 compared dilevalol administered once-daily with either dilevalol or propranolol every 12 hours; study 2 compared dilevalol administered once daily with placebo. Both studies had a placebo run-in period to establish that the baseline supine diastolic blood pressures were consistent in the mild to moderate severity range (95 to 115 mm Hg) at 2 consecutive visits for study 1 and in the mild severity range (95 to 105 mm Hg) in study 2. Patients then were randomized to the double-blind titration phase, during which doses were titrated over a 9-week period to achieve a supine diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg and a decrease from baseline of greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg. Patients were then maintained on a fixed dose for 2 months (study 1) or for 1 month (study 2). Dilevalol given once daily was as effective in reducing supine diastolic blood pressure as dilevalol every 12 hours and propranolol every 12 hours (study 1) and was superior to placebo (p less than 0.001) (study 2). In both studies, dilevalol given once daily was effective and well tolerated. The side-effect profile of dilevalol was similar to that of placebo and different from that of propranolol. Treatment with dilevalol resulted in significantly less fatigue (p less than 0.05), bradycardia (less than 50 beats/minute) and mental depression than with propranolol, but significantly (p less than 0.05) more diarrhea/loose stools.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Efficacy and safety of topiramate in the treatment of obese subjects with essential hypertension

The effect of topiramate on weight and blood pressure (BP) was examined in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in obese subjects who had hypertension. After a 4-week, placebo, run-in period, 531 obese subjects (body mass index 27 to 50 kg/m(2)) who had established hypertension were randomly assigned to placebo or 96 or 192 mg/day of topiramate. All subjects received a standardized diet, exercise advice, and behavioral modification from run-in through study end. Initially scheduled for 60 weeks on medication, the sponsor ended the study early to develop a new controlled-release formulation. As a consequence, efficacy was assessed within a predefined modified intent-to-treat population (subjects who enrolled early enough to potentially complete 28 weeks on medication). The placebo and 96- and 192-mg groups had respective weight losses of 1.9%, 5.9%, and 6.5% from baseline (p <0.001 for each comparison with placebo) and decreases in diastolic BP of 2.1, 5.5, and 6.3 mm Hg (p <0.015 vs placebo). Systolic BP was decreased by 8.6 and 9.7 mm Hg in the 96- and 192-mg groups and 4.9 mm Hg in the placebo group (p = NS). Compared with placebo, the topiramate groups had larger proportions of subjects whose weight decreased by > or =5% and 10%, whose diastolic BP decreased by > or =5 and 10 mm Hg, and who achieved normalization of BP (BP <130/85 mm Hg). Adverse events included paresthesia, fatigue, taste perversion, loss of appetite, and difficulty with concentration and attention. In conclusion, topiramate produced clinically relevant effects in reducing body weight and BP, with generally mild to moderate adverse effects.     

Antihypertensive efficacy of Irbesartan/HCTZ in men and women with the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes

This subgroup analysis of the Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) Blood Pressure Reductions in Diverse Patient Populations (INCLUSIVE) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of irbesartan/HCTZ fixed combinations in adults with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (SBP) (140-159 mm Hg; 130-159 mm Hg for type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM]) after >or=4 weeks of antihypertensive monotherapy. Treatment was sequential: placebo (4-5 weeks), HCTZ 12.5 mg (2 weeks), irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg (8 weeks), and irbesartan/HCTZ 300/25 mg (8 weeks). In the intent-to-treat analysis, mean change from baseline (end of placebo phase) off all previous therapy to Week 18 (study end) in T2DM patients (n=227) was -18.2+/-14.1 mm Hg for SBP (primary end point; p<0.001) and -8.7+/-8.2 mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure (p<0.001). Mean SBP/diastolic blood pressure changes in patients with the metabolic syndrome (n=345) were -21.0+/-14.3/-10.4+/-8.5 mm Hg (p<0.001). Overall, 56% (95% confidence interval, 49%-62%) of T2DM and 73% (95% confidence interval, 68%-77%) of metabolic syndrome patients achieved SBP goal (<140 mm Hg; <130 mm Hg for T2DM). Goal attainment rates were significantly higher among women with the metabolic syndrome than men. Treatments appeared to be well tolerated. Irbesartan/HCTZ fixed combinations achieved SBP goals in over half of the T2DM patients and nearly three quarters of patients with the metabolic syndrome, with SBP uncontrolled on antihypertensive monotherapy.     

Evaluation of the 24-hour blood pressure effects of eprosartan in patients with systemic hypertension

BACKGROUND: Eprosartan is a new nonphenyl angiotensin II receptor blocker, which has been approved for the treatment of hypertension. Although the drug has a relatively short plasma half-life of 5 to 9 h, clinical studies have suggested that its antihypertensive effect persists for 24 h. METHODS: We assessed both the changes in 24-h and trough blood pressure (BP) (last 4 h of the ambulatory BP while the patient was awake) of eprosartan at doses of 600 and 1,200 mg once daily in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ambulatory BP was monitored at placebo baseline and after 8 weeks of double-blind therapy. RESULTS: Two hundred patients randomized in the study with 177 patients completing the trial. The 24-h change in BP from baseline was 0.2/0.1 +/- 1.4/1.0 mm Hg, -7.9/ -5.4 +/- 1.0 mm Hg (P < .0001), and -7.4/-5.0 +/- 0.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) in the placebo, 600-mg eprosartan, and 1,200-mg eprosartan groups, respectively. Changes in trough ambulatory BP showed significant reductions of -6.3/-4.1 +/- 1.6/1.1 mm Hg and -7.7/-5.5 +/- 1.5/1.0 mm Hg for 600 mg of eprosartan and 1,200 mg of eprosartan, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that eprosartan at doses of 600 or 1200 mg significantly reduced BP throughout an entire 24-h dosing period. There were no differences between the 600- and 1,200-mg dose; thus, 600 mg once daily should be the only dose used in the treatment of hypertension with eprosartan.     

Effect of minoxidil on blood pressure and hemodynamics in severe hypertension

Eighteen patients with diastolic hypertension (100 to 120 mm Hg), in addition to propranolol, 160 mg daily, and hydrochlorothiazide, 100 mg daily, received progressively increased doses of either minoxidil or placebo in a double-blind crossover study. With minoxidil (average dose 19.7 mg) blood pressure decreased from 165/109 to 138/89 mm Hg without the appearance of orthostatic hypotension. Hypertrichosis and fluid retention did occur, with an average weight gain of 1.8 kg, concomitant with an increased plasma volume. Pulse rate and cardiac output increased; no significant changes were observed in plasma renin activity, renal plasma flow, glomerular filtration rate or excretion of catecholamines or aldosterone. Minoxidil appears to be a useful antihypertensive drug for treating patients who do not respond adequately to therapy with diuretic and beta adrenergic blocking agents.     

Efficacy and safety of a once daily graded-release diltiazem formulation in essential hypertension

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of a chronotherapeutic, graded-release diltiazem HCl extended-release (GRD) 120-, 240-, 360- and 540-mg dose administered once-daily at bedtime (10 PM) were evaluated in a 7-week randomized, double-blind comparison to placebo and to GRD 360 mg administered once-daily at 8 AM in 478 patients with moderate-to-severe essential hypertension. METHODS: We assessed the change from baseline to end point in trough diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 6 PM to 10 PM and in mean DBP from 6 AM to 12 noon between GRD 360 mg PM and GRD 360 mg AM, measured by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). RESULTS: Bedtime doses of GRD showed dose-related mean reductions in trough DBP that were significant for GRD doses of 240 mg and higher. Bedtime GRD 360 mg was associated with a significantly greater reduction in mean DBP between 6 AM and 12 noon compared to morning GRD 360 mg with a least squares mean for treatment difference of -3.3 mm Hg (P =.0004). Similar dose-related and significant reductions in systolic BP (SBP) and heart rate (HR) were obtained. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) for all GRD groups (44.5%) was less than that obtained for the placebo group (49.3%). The 540-mg group showed an incidence of AEs (43.5%) similar to that observed for the 240-mg group (42.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The GRD dose-dependently significantly reduces BP and HR over the 24-h interval after once-daily bedtime dosing. Further greater reductions were obtained between 6 AM and 12 noon, when circadian BP is highest, compared to morning administration of the same dose. The 540-mg GRD was safe, well tolerated, and offers further therapeutic option for patients with severe hypertension who required additional BP control.     

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 the ACE-inhibitor perindopril in the elderly

To assess the antihypertensive efficacy of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor, perindopril, in the elderly, patients >65 years of age with supine diastolic blood pressure (BP) > or =90 and < or =110 mm Hg at the end of a 4-week placebo washout period were treated with perindopril 4-8 mg/daily vs placebo using a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel group design. Of the 191 patients entered, 183 completed 8 weeks of double-blind therapy. Average age was 72-73 years. Supine and standing BP at the end of the placebo run-in period were 173/96 vs 168/96 mm Hg. BPs were measured in the morning, 20-25 h after the previous day's dose (ie, at the end of the dosing interval). In the placebo group, supine and standing diastolic BP decreased by 3-4 mm Hg, and systolic BP by 6-7 mm Hg. In the perindopril-group, diastolic BP decreased by 6-7 mm Hg and systolic BP by 10-13 mm Hg (both P < 0.01 vs placebo). These data indicate a substantial placebo response of particularly systolic BP in older hypertensives and indicate the importance of a parallel placebo-group to assess the extent of the actual drug's effect. Perindopril caused additional decreases in diastolic BP by about 2 mm Hg, and in systolic BP by 4-5 mm Hg. The extent of this drug-effect may be less in older vs middle-aged hypertensives.     

奥美沙坦酯与缬沙坦对原发性高血压患者血压晨峰的影响

目的比较奥美沙坦酯和缬沙坦治疗高血压患者血压晨峰的疗效。方法选择我院76例原发性高血压患者随机分为2组,分别接受奥美沙坦酯20-40mg／d或缬沙坦80-160mg／d治疗,共8周,观察服药前及服药后清晨血压变化。结果奥美沙坦酯组和缬沙坦组治疗后晨峰血压均有明显下降,与治疗前比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。奥美沙坦酯组和缬沙坦组晨峰血压下降的幅度分别为：／kSBP（10．22±0．35）mmHg、（5．63±0．21）mmHg;△DBP（7．71±0．29）mmHg、（3．55±0．14）mmHg,奥美沙坦酯组血压晨峰下降幅度高于缬沙坦组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论奥美沙坦酯和缬沙坦均可以有效地控制原发性高血压患者血压晨蜂现象,奥美沙坦酯优于缬沙坦。     

Prazosin versus propranolol plus prazosin: a comparison in diuretic-treated hypertensive patients

The antihypertensive efficacy of prazosin was compared with that of a combination of prazosin and propranolol in 14 patients with essential hypertension. All patients had sitting diastolic blood pressures greater than or equal to 95 mm Hg despite daily therapy with 50 mg of hydrochlorothiazide and 240 mg of propranolol. After a 4-week monitoring period, patients were divided randomly into 2 groups in whom either (1) propranolol was reduced to 120 mg/day (to avoid potential hypotension) and prazosin was added, starting with an initial dose of 1 mg twice daily, or (2) propranolol was tapered and discontinued as prazosin was added. The average doses of prazosin were 7.4 and 7.6 mg/day, respectively. After 12 weeks of therapy, blood pressure was reduced in both groups, and there was no significant difference in the reduction of blood pressure or dose of prazosin in the 2 groups. Mean heart rate increased significantly in both groups (p less than 0.01), but more so in the group of patients who discontinued propranolol therapy. Thus, when a combination of 50 mg/day of hydrochlorothiazide and 240 mg/day of propranolol is insufficient to control hypertension, the addition of prazosin is shown to decrease blood pressure whether or not propranolol is continued.