Quinapril versus enalapril in the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

Two angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, quinapril and enalapril, were evaluated for comfort, safety, and efficacy in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension. After a four-week placebo period, 53 hypertensive outpatients (diastolic blood pressure, 95 to 115 mmHg), aged 31 to 66 years, were randomly assigned to received 10 to 20 mg of quinapril or enalapril daily for 12 weeks. Two hours after the first dose of each drug, sitting and standing systolic and diastolic blood pressures were reduced significantly from baseline values; these reductions were maintained for the 12 weeks of treatment, with no significant between-group differences. No changes in heart rate were noted. Treatment was discontinued in three quinapril-treated patients and in one enalapril-treated patient because of treatment side effects. It is concluded that both quinapril and enalapril are safe and effective in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension.     

Comparison of telmisartan with lisinopril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

In this study, telmisartan, a new angiotensin AT ( 1 ) receptor antagonist given as monotherapy and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), was compared with lisinopril as monotherapy and in combination with HCTZ. This 52-week, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, dose-titration study of 578 patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (mean diastolic blood pressure [DBP], >/=95 mm Hg), compared the efficacy and safety of telmisartan (n = 385) with lisinopril (n = 193). Dosage could be increased for both telmisartan (40 --> 80 --> 160 mg) and lisinopril (10 --> 20 --> 40 mg) at each of the first 2 monthly visits if DBP control (<90 mm Hg) had not been established. Once DBP control was established, patients entered the 48-week maintenance period. During this period, the dose of the study drug was fixed, although open-label HCTZ at 12.5 mg or 25 mg was added, when needed, to regain DBP control. At the end of the titration period, DBP control was achieved on monotherapy by 67% and 63% of the telmisartan and lisinopril patients, respectively. At the end of the maintenance period, supine DBP was controlled in 83% and 87% of the telmisartan and lisinopril patients, respectively, with systolic blood pressure over DBP reductions of 23.8/16.6 mm Hg for telmisartan and 19.9/15.6 mm Hg for lisinopril. Treatment-related side effects occurred in fewer telmisartan-treated patients (28%) than in lisinopril-treated patients (40%; P =.001). Significantly fewer patients (P =.018) receiving telmisartan experienced treatment-related cough (3% v 7%), and cough led to discontinuation significantly less often (P =.007) with telmisartan treatment than with lisinopril treatment (0.3% v 3.1%). In addition, two cases of angioedema were observed, both in the lisinopril group. The selective AT (1) receptor antagonist, telmisartan, is extremely effective in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension both as monotherapy and in combination with HCTZ and is at least comparable in efficacy to lisinopril, with a tolerability profile that may offer advantages in terms of a reduced incidence of adverse events.     

The efficacy of telmisartan compared with perindopril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension

In this study, efficacy of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker telmisartan given as monotherapy was compared with that of perindopril monotherapy in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 60 patients were randomised to double-blind, once-daily treatment with telmisartan 80 mg or perindopril 4 mg for 6 weeks. Clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measurements and clinical laboratory evaluation were performed at the end of the placebo run-in and active treatment phases. Both telmisartan and perindopril significantly (p < 0.0001) reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) compared with baseline values. Also, both drugs significantly (p < 0.0001) reduced 24-h mean ambulatory SBP and DBP compared with baseline. Comparison of the mean hourly antihypertensive activities showed that the reduction in mean ambulatory DBP for the last 8 h of the dosing interval was significantly greater (p < 0.05) in telmisartan-treated patients. A 24-h mean DBP of <85 mmHg was observed in 66.6% of the telmisartan-treated patients but in only 46.6% of the perindopril-treated patients (p < 0.05). It is concluded that telmisartan and perindopril both produce significant reductions in clinic SBP and DBP, but the mean reduction in ambulatory DBP during the last 8 h of the dosing interval is greater in patients treated with telmisartan.     

The efficacy and safety of telmisartan compared to enalapril in patients with severe hypertension

This 8-week, open-label study compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily telmisartan, either alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and amlodipine, with a similar enalapril regimen in patients with severe hypertension. Clinically relevant reductions in supine systolic blood pressure/DBP were observed with telmisartan (14.6/13.2 mmHg) and enalapril (13.0/12.9 mmHg) monotherapy. Incremental reductions were seen with up-titration of monotherapy (telmisartan 8.1/7.4 and enalapril 9.2/7.7 mmHg), and the addition of HCTZ (telmisartan 14.9/8.7 and enalapril 8.0/6.7 mmHg), and amlodipine (telmisartan 8.0/6.5 and enalapril 10.5/6.4). After 8 weeks of treatment, supine DBP control was achieved in 55% and 35% of the patients on the telmisartan and enalapril regimens, respectively. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated. Telmisartan, a new angiotensin receptor blocker, is a safe and effective drug to use in combination for the treatment of patients with severe hypertension and proved at least as effective as the enalapril combination.     

Dose-related efficacy of irbesartan in patients, with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension

OBJECTIVE: A prospective open multicentre study was conducted in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension to compare the efficacy on diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and tolerance of treatment with either irbesartan 150mg od (once daily) or irbesartan 300mg od in patients who were defined as non-normalised responders with irbesartan 150mg od. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 14 820 hypertensive patients were included in the study. After 6 weeks with irbesartan 150mg od, in terms of their response to treatment, 8861 (61.9%) were normalised (DBP <90mm Hg), 1963 (13.7%) non-normalised responders (DBP > or = 90mm Hg with a decrease in DBP > or = 10mm Hg) and 3154 (22%) non-normalised non-responders (DBP > or = 90mm Hg with a decrease in DBP <10mm Hg); 842 patients did not respect the protocol and could not be evaluated. The 1963 non-normalised responders were randomly assigned at week 6 to either irbesartan 150mg od (n = 963) or irbesartan 300mg od (n = 1000) for 5 weeks. A greater reduction in mean DBP was found in the group treated with irbesartan 300mg (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in terms of number or severity of adverse events between the two groups of patients.     

Ambulatory blood pressure comparison of the anti-hypertensive efficacy of fixed combinations of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide and losartan/hydrochlorothiazide in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension

This study examined whether the greater anti-hypertensive efficacy of irbesartan monotherapy over losartan monotherapy extends to the respective fixed-dose combinations with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Patients were treated with either irbesartan 150 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg over a 4-week period. Twenty-four hour daytime and night-time mean blood pressure (BP), BP load and duration of action were assessed using ambulatory BP monitoring. Both treatment regimens significantly reduced BP from baseline for all efficacy variables assessed. A significant difference was noted in adjusted mean changes from baseline in 24-h ambulatory diastolic BP with irbesartan/HCTZ versus losartan/HCTZ. Reduction in diastolic load was significantly greater with irbesartan/HCTZ than with losartan/HCTZ as was mean ambulatory systolic BP during the last 4 h of the dosing interval. Both regimens were well tolerated, with no significant differences in terms of adverse event profile observed. Irbesartan 150 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg resulted in greater reductions in ambulatory BP than losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg.     

Efficacy and tolerability of enalapril monotherapy in mild-to-moderate hypertension in older patients compared to younger patients

In an eight-week, multicenter open-label study of enalapril monotherapy for mild-to-moderate essential hypertension, data for 115 of the 276 participants between the ages of 55 and 75 years (whites, n = 90; blacks, n = 25) were analyzed. These data were compared with similar data for the study subset of 92 younger patients between the ages of 21 and 45 years (whites, n = 58; blacks, n = 34). The most striking finding was the overall lack of significant differences in response between older and younger patients. There were, however, significant differences in response to therapy between the two racial groups studied. In the older group, normotension was achieved in 66% of white patients and 60% of black patients with a single daily dose of enalapril ranging from 5 to 40 mg; the group means, 13 +/- 1 mg in whites vs 22 +/- 2 mg in blacks, differed significantly (P less than 0.05). Thirty-one percent of older white patients attained normotension with a daily dosage of 5 mg, whereas only 4% of black patients in this age group did so. Only 4% of the older white patients but 24% of the older black patients reached the highest recommended daily dosage of 40 mg of enalapril. Adverse reactions occurred in 11% of the older white patients and 16% of the older black patients (a nonsignificant difference), consisting mostly of gastrointestinal discomfort, malaise, dizziness, and pruritus. There were no significant biochemical abnormalities, the only consistent change being a slight increase in mean plasma potassium from 4.34 to 4.45 mEq/L in older whites (P less than 0.05). Enalapril appeared to be generally effective and well tolerated in the management of mild-to-moderate hypertension in the older subset of patients in this study. Efficacy and tolerability data for older and younger patients were comparable.     

Clinical efficacy and safety of telmisartan 80 mg once daily compared with enalapril 20 mg once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension: results of a multicentre study

The efficacy and safety of once-daily telmisartan 80 mg vs. once-daily enalapril 20 mg in the treatment of essential hypertension were evaluated in a multicentre, single-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. In total, 68 patients (49 females, 19 males) with mild-to-moderate hypertension, defined as morning supine systolic blood pressure (SBP) 141-149 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-114 mmHg, were enrolled. After a 4-week placebo run-in phase, patients were randomly assigned to treatment with telmisartan or enalapril administered once daily in the morning for 8 weeks. No statistically significant differences were found in the baseline characteristics of patients in either group. Both SBP and DBP were decreased in both treatment groups, but the reductions were statistically different in favour of telmisartan (SBP, p = 0.013; DBP, p = 0.002). The incidence of adverse effects was lower in the telmisartan group, with the absence of cough. In conclusion, telmisartan is more effective and better tolerated than enalapril for the treatment of hypertension and has the advantage that it does not cause cough.     

替米沙坦对高血压病患者血浆apelin-12水平的影响

目的探讨替米沙坦对高血压病(EH)患者血浆apelin-12浓度的影响及其临床意义。方法轻、中度EH患者(EH组)45例,替米沙坦治疗12周,酶联免疫法测定治疗前后血浆apelin-12浓度,健康体检者30例作为对照。同时对EH组患者进行治疗前、后超声心动图检测,包括平均动脉压、左室射血分数(LVEF)及射血分数缩短率(LVFS)、左心室舒张末期内径(LVDd)、二尖瓣前叶舒张中期斜率(EF斜率)及二尖瓣血流多普勒频谱早晚期流速峰比值(E/A)等心功能指标。结果EH患者血浆apelin-12降低,与正常人比较,差异有统计学意义[(3.14±0.40)μg/Lvs(3.61±0.30)μg/L,P=0.0001]。替米沙坦治疗后EH患者血浆apelin-12浓度升高,差异有统计学意义[(3.14±0.40)μg/Lvs(3.41±0.59)μg/L,P=0.013]。心功能指标无明显变化(均P>0.05)。结论EH患者血浆apelin-12浓度降低,apelin-12与平均动脉压(MAP)存在负相关(r=-0.410,P=0.005),提示apelin-12含量的变化在EH发生中起一定的作用。替米沙坦能升高轻、中度EH患者血浆apelin-12的水平,其降压作用部分与apelin-12的升高有关。     

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study to compare the anti-hypertensive effects of imidapril and nifedipine in the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension

This 12-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study compared efficacy of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor imidapril 5 - 10 mg/day and the calcium channel blocker nifedipine slow-release (SR) formulation 20 - 40 mg twice daily. In total 320 patients aged 18 - 75 years, with mean sitting diastolic blood pressures of 95 - 115 mmHg, were randomized to treatment with imidapril (n = 157) or nifedipine SR (n = 163). Efficacy evaluations were based on the intent-to-treat principle. On study completion, there was no difference between the groups with respect to the primary efficacy variable of response to treatment (imidapril 63.1%; nifedipine SR 61.3%). After 2 weeks' treatment, clinically relevant decreases in blood pressure were observed in both groups, with a trend towards further reductions until study end. Fewer patients in the imidapril-treated group than the nifedipine group withdrew due to adverse events that occurred on treatment with study medication (3.2% versus 16.0%) or experienced adverse events (40.1% versus 49.7%). In addition, fewer adverse events were causally related to imidapril (24.2%) compared with nifedipine SR (41.7%). These results show that imidapril is effective in the treatment of essential hypertension and is better tolerated than nifedipine SR.     

Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 40 mg vs. enalapril 10 mg in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension: a multicentre, double-blind study in Taiwanese patients

The purpose of this randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 40 mg once daily vs. enalapril 10 mg once daily in 147 Taiwanese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 90-109 mmHg). After 6 weeks' treatment, telmisartan produced a significantly greater reduction from baseline in the primary endpoint of trough seated DBP compared with enalapril 10 mg (11.7 vs. 8.7 mmHg, respectively; p = 0.02). Numerically greater reductions compared with baseline in seated systolic blood pressure (SBP), standing DBP, and standing SBP were achieved with telmisartan compared with enalapril. Also, numerically greater proportions of patients achieved blood pressure control (DBP/systolic blood pressure [SBP] <90/140 mmHg) and responded to treatment (reduction from baseline in trough seated DBP > or = 10 mmHg and/or post-treatment DBP <90 mmHg; reduction from baseline in trough seated SBP > or = 10 mmHg and/or post-treatment SBP <140 mmHg) with telmisartan 40 mg compared with enalapril 10 mg. Although both treatments were well tolerated, the incidence of cough was markedly lower with telmisartan 40 mg (8.5%) than with enalapril 10 mg (18.4%) in this population of Taiwanese hypertensive patients.     

Submaximal endurance exercise performance during enalapril treatment in patients with essential hypertension.

In a double-blind randomized crossover study of 10 patients with mild essential hypertension, the influence of antihypertensive treatment with the angiotensin-I converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (a single dose of 10 mg.day-1) on submaximal endurance exercise performance at a work rate eliciting a heart rate of 150 beats/min was studied. Resting and exercise blood pressure were significantly reduced during enalapril therapy. Heart rate was unaffected. Submaximal endurance exercise performance was reduced by 12% (p = 0.06). Plasma lactate concentrations were significantly increased and serum nonesterified fatty acid concentrations were decreased during exercise in patients receiving enalapril treatment. Plasma glucose and potassium levels and serum glycerol concentrations were not influenced by enalapril treatment. Because the impairment of endurance performance during enalapril treatment is relatively small compared with the reductions caused by other antihypertensive agents, such as beta-adrenoceptor blocking agents or diuretics, it is of minor clinical importance for most physically active patients with hypertension.     

替米沙坦对原发性高血压合并糖调节受损患者胰岛素抵抗的改善作用

目的探讨替米沙坦和硝苯地平对原发性高血压合并糖调节受损患者胰岛素抵抗的影响。方法原发性高血压伴糖调节受损患者60例,随机分为两组,分别服用替米沙坦（替米沙坦组,n=30）和硝苯地平（硝苯地平组,n=30）,观察服药前后糖代谢及胰岛素抵抗等指标。结果患者经6个月的治疗后,替米沙坦组空腹胰岛素、餐后2小时血糖、胰岛素抵抗指数等指标较治疗前明显下降,（9.7±4.3）mU/L vs（8.0±3.9）mU/L（P〈0.05）,（8.9±1.6）mmol/L vs（7.3±0.8）mmol/L（P〈0.05）,2.4±1.0 vs 1.6±0.6（P〈0.05）;治疗后上述指标与硝苯地平组比较,差异均有统计学意义（8.0±3.9）mU/L vs（9.6±3.5）mU/L（P〈0.01）,（7.3±0.8）mmol/L vs（8.8±0.5）mmol/L（P〈0.05）,1.6±0.6 vs 2.4±0.9（P〈0.05）。硝苯地平组治疗后糖代谢（空腹及餐后2小时血糖）及胰岛素抵抗等指标较治疗前差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论替米沙坦可改善原发性高血压合并糖调节受损患者胰岛素敏感性。     

Combined use of zolpidem and enalapril in elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension and sleep problems

Changes in 24-h profiles of arterial pressure following treatment with zolpidem were studied in 12 patients with essential arterial hypertension and chronic sleep problems on enalapril. One week treatment with zolpidem improved quality of sleep, increased a circadian index of systolic arterial pressure, 3 non-dipper patients recovered circadian rhythm of arterial pressure. The antihypertensive effect at night was higher when enalapril was used in combination with zolpidem than in monotherapy with enalapril.     

Effect of enalapril maleate on vascular endothelial function and platelet-endothelial interactions in patients with essential hypertension

AIM: Evaluation of endothelial function and platelet-endothelial interactions in patients with essential hypertension and dynamics of these changes in the course of treatment with enalapril maleate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 37 patients with essential hypertension and 22 normotensive volunteers. 17 of hypertensive patients received enalapril maleate (enap, KRKA) 5-20 mg/day during the period of 1.5 months. The complex of investigations included: measurement of total plasma cholesteroi, 12-lead ECG, echocardiography, high-resolution ultrasound investigation of brachio-cephalic arteries, evaluation of flow-mediated dilation, measurement of von Willebrand's factor, spontaneous and induced platelet aggregation. RESULTS: Patients with essential hypertension exhibited higher levels of von Willebrand's factor in plasma and degree of spontaneous and induced platelet aggregation as well as lower responses of vessel wall to hemodynamic stimuli compared to normotensive healthy individuals. There was a strong correlation between endothelial function markers and CAD risk factors, elevation of platelet activity. Treatment with enalapril maleate led to a statistically significant decrease of von Willebrand's factor in plasma and ex vivo platelet aggregation whereas flow-mediated dilatation increased. Values of endothelial function markers and platelet activity approached to those of normotensive subjects and these changes were accompanied by a decrease of ECG signs of left ventricular hypertrophy. CONCLUSION: Patients with essential hypertension were found to have compromised endothelial function. However, the degree of endothelial dysfunction depends not on hemodynamic parameters, but on the cumulative effect of CAD risk factors. Treatment with enalapril maleate may lead to normalisation of endothelial function and decrease of platelet activity.     

A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of enalapril and sustained-release diltiazem in mild to moderate essential hypertension

The subjects of this multicenter study were 159 patients aged 21 to 76 years with mild to moderate uncomplicated essential hypertension. The patients were randomly assigned to receive up to 40 mg of enalapril daily or 360 mg of sustained-release diltiazem daily for a titration period of eight weeks and then maintenance doses for four weeks. The treatment goal was a supine diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mmHg or a fall of at least 10 mmHg from baseline. During titration, 62% of the enalapril-treated patients and 51% of the diltiazem-treated patients reached the treatment goal after two weeks, 82% and 74% after four weeks, 87% and 84% after six weeks, and 92% and 87% after eight weeks. During the maintenance period, 85% of the enalapril-treated and 87% of the diltiazem-treated patients maintained the goal blood pressure. Treatment side effects were reported by 21% of the enalapril-treated patients and 29% of the diltiazem-treated patients; treatment was discontinued in two patients from each group because of side effects. It is concluded that both drugs were generally well tolerated and effective in the treatment of adult mild to moderate essential hypertension.     

替米沙坦对肥胖高血压患者胰岛素敏感性及血清高敏C反应蛋白的影响

目的:探讨替米沙坦对肥胖高血压患者血压、糖脂代谢指标和血清脂联素、高敏C反应蛋白的影响及其机制.方法:选取23例超体质量或肥胖的原发性高血压患者,给予替米沙坦40 mg,1次/d,2周后增至80 mg,1次/d,每2周随访1次,记录心率、血压、体质量,必要时加用长效钙拮抗剂,治疗16周.观察用药前、后患者腰围、腰臀比、体质量指数、血压、空腹血糖、胰岛素、血脂和血清脂联素及高敏C反应蛋白的变化.采用稳态模式法计算胰岛素抵抗指数.结果:与治疗前比较.治疗后患者收缩压、舒张压及胰岛素抵抗指数均明显下降(P<0.01),血清脂联素升高(P<0.01),高敏C反应蛋白水平降低(P<0.05).结论:替米沙坦可改善肥胖伴高血压患者的胰岛素敏感性,升高血清脂联素水平、降低高敏C反应蛋白水平.     

Efficacy and tolerability of enalapril and sustained-release verapamil in older patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension

The study involved 113 patients over age 50 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension, randomly assigned to treatment with enalapril (n = 54) or sustained-release verapamil (n = 59). During an eight-week titration period, doses were adjusted to achieve supine diastolic blood pressures (DBP) below 90 mmHg; patients were then given maintenance doses for eight weeks. Mean blood pressures were reduced significantly from 147.7/93.9 mmHg at baseline to 137.7/84.5 mmHg at the end of the maintenance period in the enalapril group and from 155.1/95.1 to 142.4/86.2 mmHg in the verapamil group. In the patients who completed treatment, the mean daily doses required to maintain DBP below 90 mmHg were 9.6 mg of enalapril and 244.9 mg of verapamil. There were 11 treatment failures in the enalapril group and 22 in the verapamil group: eight of the enalapril and 17 of the verapamil patients did not attain goal blood pressures and three and five were withdrawn because of side effects. It is concluded that both enalapril and sustained-release verapamil were generally effective and well tolerated in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension in the middle-aged and older patients.     

A double-blind ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily telmisartan 40 mg in comparison with losartan 50 mg in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension in Taiwanese patients

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was used to compare the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily telmisartan 40 mg and once-daily losartan 50 mg in Taiwanese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study. The initial 2-week placebo run-in phase was followed by randomisation to treatment with telmisartan 40 mg (n = 31) or losartan 50 mg (n = 30) for 6 weeks. The reduction in 18- to 24-h mean (SE) ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline was significantly greater with telmisartan 40 mg (-12.1 +/- 1.6 mmHg, p = 0.036) than with losartan 50 mg (-7.0 +/- 1.8 mmHg). The reduction in 18- to 24-h mean (SE) ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) from baseline was also greater with telmisartan 40 mg (-16.0 +/- 2.4 mmHg) than with losartan 50 mg (-11.8 +/- 2.7 mmHg), but did not achieve statistical significance. Telmisartan was well tolerated; no serious adverse events occurred.     

A double-blind comparison of bisoprolol and atenolol in patients with essential hypertension

We compared the ß₁-selective adrenoceptor antagonistsbisoprolol and atenolol in a double-blind, randomized crossoverstudy. After 4 weeks placebo phase, 59 patients with essentialhypertension received either 10 mg bisoprolol or 50 mg atenololonce daily for 8 weeks, increased if necessary (target BP 150/90mmHg) to 20 and 100 mg, respectively, after 4 weeks. After asecondplacebo phase, crossover occurred to the alternative drug. Wemeasured resting systolicand diastolic blood pressures and heartrate at 24 h post-dose baseline and after 4 and 8 weeks treatment.Both drugssignificantly lowered systolic and diastolic bloodpressures and heart rate at 8 weeks compared to baseline (allp <0.05). Bisoprololreduced heart ratesignificantly morethan atenolol (p <0.01), but systolic and diastolic bloodpressure changes were not different between the two drugs. Therewas no difference in patient acceptability of the drugs as assessedby visual analogue scale. Despite theoreticaland circumstantialevidence to suggest superiority of bisoprolol over atenolol,no significant difference between the two was found except forgreater heart rate reduction with bisoprolol.