The Effect of Antihypertensive Agents on New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus

Recent large hypertension trials have shown great differences in incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus among patients receiving different antihypertensive drug therapies. The incidence of diabetes is unchanged or increased by the use of thiazide diuretics and beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers) and unchanged or decreased by ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers). Recent results from ASCOT (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial) showed superiority of the 'new' combination of CCBs and ACE inhibitors over the 'old' or 'conventional' combination of beta-blockers and diuretics. In this review, the results from some of the large hypertension trials are discussed, and the hypotheses on how different antihypertensive drug regimens can affect glucose homeostasis are considered. The question now is whether the results from these recent trials should affect the choice of antihypertensive treatment, particularly for special groups. However, the key goal is still to reduce BP, and this usually requires combinations of drugs.     

New hypertension guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the British Hypertension Society.

A joint initiative between the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the British Hypertension Society (BHS) has led to the publication of new guidelines for the management of hypertension in the community. Recent trial evidence highlighting the increased incidence of new-onset diabetes in those exposed to beta-blocker-based treatment regimens, with or without diuretics, compared with those based on calcium channel blockers (CCBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE-Is) inhibitors has led to a recommendation that in the uncomplicated patient, beta-blockers are no longer considered suitable options for first-line therapy. Together with mounting evidence that age and ethnicity dictate blood pressure (BP) responsiveness to different classes of antihypertensive drugs, the ACD algorithm is now proposed (formerly ABCD), with ACE inhibitors (ACE-Is) (or angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs] when ACE-Is are poorly tolerated) preferred in younger patients and CCBs or diuretics preferred for older patients and in black patients of any age. Pathophysiological considerations have influenced proposals for combination therapies with CCBs or diuretics added to ACE-Is in younger patients and vice versa in older patients. Health economic analyses have clearly indicated the cost effectiveness of CCBs which are now elevated to equal standing with diuretics in older patients.     

Drug treatment for hypertension in Finnish primary health care

Objective: To analyse the prescribing patterns of antihypertensive drugs in Finnish primary health care and to describe the profiles of monotherapy and combination therapy in relation to the duration of high blood pressure. Methods: Thirty out of 250 primary health care centres were randomly selected for the study. All doctors (n?=?337) from the participating health centres recorded all hypertensive patients (n?=?4405) during a 2-week period in May 1995. Adequate information was obtained concerning 4294 hypertensives, of whom 65% were women with a mean age for the total study population of 64 years. 85% of the patients (n= 3638) had antihypertensive medication which was classified into five main categories: diuretics, beta blocking agents, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors and hypotensives. Results: Of the patients using antihypertensive medication, 48% were undergoing monotherapy and 52% combination therapy. Beta blocking agents were the most frequently prescribed drugs for hypertension, being used by half of the patients. ACE inhibitors and diuretics were prescribed in a different manner for male and female hypertensives, with men receiving more ACE inhibitors and women more diuretics. The number of antihypertensive drugs increased with the duration of hypertension, though 38% of the patients having hypertension for over 10 years were still undergoing monotherapy. Among patients undergoing combination therapy, 75% received two different agents, most often a diuretic with a beta blocking agent. Conclusions: With increasing duration of hypertension, the number of antihypertensive drugs also increased. Beta blocking agents were the drug of choice for all patients. For women, combination therapy more frequently included diuretics, whereas ACE inhibitors were favoured for men.     

Trends in the use of antihypertensive drugs by outpatients with diabetes in Taiwan, 1997-2003

PURPOSE: To analyze trends in AHD-use by diabetic outpatients in Taiwan over a 7-year period (1997-2003) and to see whether the trends are consistent with clinical trial outcomes and published guidelines. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was implemented using National Health Insurance Research Database between January 1997 and December 2003. Adult outpatients who had diagnoses of diabetes and hypertension and who had concurrent antidiabetic and antihypertensive drug claim were identified. The prescribing trends were described in terms of the prescribing rates and patterns of AHDs in each study year. RESULTS: Of the AHDs, CCBs were the most widely prescribed class throughout the study period but the prescribing rates declined considerably over the study period. A significant downward trend was also observed for beta-blockers and other classes. Drugs acting on the RAS were the only one class showing a significant increase in prescribing rates with time. The prescribing patterns for monotherapy regimen decreased over time while those for two-, three-, and four or more drug regimens increased over time. Monotherapies maintained with CCBs, beta-blockers, diuretics, and other classes steadily declined but those maintained with drugs acting on the RAS markedly increased. CONCLUSIONS: The use of drugs acting on the RAS showed a marked increasing trend over the course of the study. Physicians' prescribing patterns for AHD are increasingly involving multi-drug regimens. These findings may imply that management of hypertension in patients with diabetes had a positive trend toward to new clinical trial outcomes and guideline's recommendation.     

Combination Drug Therapy in Hypertension: A Rational Approach for the Pharmacist

ObjectiveTo review the use of combination therapy versus monotherapy in hypertension, and to review seven major antihypertensive combinations in regard to their pharmacologic actions and appropriateness.Data SourcesLiterature was identified through a MEDLINE search from January 1985 to December 1997. Search terms included hypertension, blood pressure, combination therapy, diuretics, beta-receptor antagonists, calcium channel antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEls). Major hypertension texts were also reviewed for information on combination therapy.Study SelectionClinical studies focusing primarily on blood pressure control with combinations of antihypertensive medications.Data ExtractionData were evaluated with respect to study design, clinical outcomes, and use of antihypertensive classes commonly seen in practice.Data SynthesisCombination therapy in hypertension is often required because many patients cannot be controlled on one drug alone. Available data demonstrate that ACEIs plus diuretics or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) produce synergistic effects on blood pressure. Beta-blockers plus diuretics or CCBs produce additive effects, as does the rarer combination of diltiazem plus a dihydropyridine CCB. Ineffective combinations include betablockers plus ACEls and dihydropyridine CCBs plus diuretics, although there are specific clinical circumstances where these combinations may be used.ConclusionWhen used appropriately, certain combinations of antihypertensives can effectively control blood pressure and minimize side effects. The pharmacist who understands and applies the pharmacology of these antihypertensives can help prescribers make rational decisions in selecting combination therapy.     

A Comparison of Two Multiple-Characteristic Decision-Making Models for the Comparison of Antihypertensive Drug Classes

BACKGROUND: Multiple-characteristics decision-making (MCDM) models can be used to calculate a score, based on a set of characteristics, for a number of alternative drugs or drug classes to allow comparison between them and thus enhance evidence-based pharmacotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To compare two MCDM models, Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), in determining first-line antihypertensive drug class. METHODS: Five different classes of antihypertensive drugs were analyzed: diuretics, beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers), dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHP-CCBs), ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]). Four characteristics were deemed relevant for the determination of first-line antihypertensive drug class: effectiveness, persistence with treatment as a measure of tolerability, cost, and clinical experience. Weight factors were determined by sending questionnaires to cardiologists, pharmacists, general practitioners (GPs), and internists in The Netherlands. Absolute scores for the characteristics were determined from literature (effectiveness and persistence) and health insurance data (costs and clinical experience). RESULTS: Ninety-two cardiologists (33% of those sent the questionnaire), 90 GPs (31%), 87 internists (31%), and 123 pharmacists (43%) completed the questionnaire. Among all professions, according to both SAW and TOPSIS, ACE inhibitors were ranked as the first-line antihypertensive drug class, typically followed by beta-blockers. CONCLUSION: Both SAW and TOPIS analyses, using weight factors assigned by cardiologists, pharmacists, GPs, and internists from The Netherlands, rank ACE inhibitors as the first choice among antihypertensive drug classes for the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension. Both methods are valuable tools in the development of evidence-based pharmacotherapy.     

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and stroke risk: benefit beyond blood pressure reduction?

Hypertension, a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, accounts for 25-49% of all strokes. Randomized placebo-controlled trials primarily with diuretics and beta-blockers administered in patients with hypertension have demonstrated a 38% reduction in primary stroke. Placebo-controlled trials with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have not been conducted in patients with hypertension. However, in a meta-analysis of four placebo-controlled trials of ACE inhibitors in patients with coronary heart disease and/or diabetes mellitus, the overall risk of primary stroke was significantly reduced. Results of the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation trial, which produced a substantial reduction in stroke with an apparently small reduction in blood pressure, suggest that the benefit of ACE inhibitors may be related to their effects on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system more than on blood pressure reduction. In active-control comparisons in patients with hypertension, ACE inhibitors have demonstrated reductions in primary stroke risk similar to reductions with diuretics, beta-blockers, and calcium channel blockers. The data suggest that for primary prevention of stroke antihypertensive therapy should be individualized in patients. Relatively few data are available concerning the benefit of antihypertensive therapy in the secondary prevention of stroke. In patients who had experienced a stroke or transient ischemic attack, therapy with a diuretic or a combination of a diuretic plus an ACE inhibitor could be recommended based on available outcome studies conducted in this patient population. It is premature to conclude that the benefit of ACE inhibitor therapy in primary or secondary prevention of stroke is an effect independent of blood pressure reduction. Hypertension detection, treatment, and control in patients still must be the principal focus of clinicians for both primary and secondary prevention of stroke.     

A Meta-Analytical Approach to the Efficacy of Antihypertensive Drugs in Reducing Blood Pressure

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension constitutes a veritable public health issue. Several classes of drugs are available for the treatment of hypertension. The objective of this meta-analytical approach was to assess the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs most commonly used in France in reducing clinical SBP and DBP. METHODS: The antihypertensive drugs selected were hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide sustained release (SR), furosemide and spironolactone for diuretics; amlodipine and lercanidipine for calcium channel antagonists; atenolol for beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers); enalapril and ramipril for ACE inhibitors; and candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan, losartan, and valsartan for angiotensin II receptor antagonists. The trials selected were published between 1973 and 2004, evaluated monotherapy with trial drugs as fixed-dosage or with dosage increase, and assessed blood pressure reduction between 2 and 3 months. The analysis method used was based on the calculation of the sum weighted for the trial size. RESULTS: A total of 72 trials (comprising 9094 patients) were selected and analyzed. No trial evaluating furosemide or spironolactone satisfied the inclusion criteria for this analysis. For SBP, the reduction was more marked with diuretics, calcium channel antagonists, and ACE inhibitors. Of all the drugs studied, indapamide SR gave the greatest SBP reduction (-22.2 mm Hg). Evaluated therapeutic classes had a similar magnitude of effect on DBP, i.e. reduction between -11.4 mm Hg with beta-adrenoceptor antagonists and -10.3 mm Hg with angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSION: Indapamide SR 1.5 mg appeared to be the most effective drug for a significant reduction in SBP within 2-3 months, which is an essential element in optimizing cardiovascular prevention among hypertensive patients. The clinical application of these results should take into consideration all the limitations discussed in this analysis.     

Calcium channel blockers as the treatment of choice for hypertension in renal transplant recipients: fact or fiction

Posttransplantation hypertension has been identified as an independent risk factor for chronic allograft dysfunction and loss. Based on available morbidity and mortality data, posttransplantation hypertension must be identified and managed appropriately. During the past decade, calcium channel blockers have been recommended by some as the antihypertensive agents of choice in this population, because it was theorized that their vasodilatory effects would counteract the vasoconstrictive effects of the calcineurin inhibitors. With increasing data becoming available, reexamining the use of traditional antihypertensive agents, including diuretics and beta-blockers, or the newer agents, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers, may be beneficial. Transplant clinicians must choose antihypertensive agents that will provide their patients with maximum benefit, from both a renal and a cardiovascular perspective. Beta-blockers, diuretics, and ACE inhibitors have all demonstrated significant benefit on morbidity and mortality in patients with cardiovascular disease. Calcium channel blockers have been shown to possess the ability to counteract cyclosporine-induced nephrotoxicity. When compared with beta-blockers, diuretics, and ACE inhibitors, however, the relative risk of cardiovascular events is increased with calcium channel blockers. With the long-term benefits of calcium channel blockers on the kidney unknown and a negative cardiovascular profile, these agents are best reserved as adjunctive therapy to beta-blockers, diuretics, and ACE inhibitors.     

An evaluation of antihypertensive prescribing practices

We evaluated the management of patients with hypertension (including drug prescribing) by US physicians, compared their prescribing to National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines, and compared the pharmacoeconomics of the prescribed antihypertensive drugs. A 1991 national US database, using physician-patient encounter forms, was our data source. Results showed that physicians generally met the NIH guidelines regarding diagnostic/screening services, patient counselling/education, antihypertensive drug prescribing and follow-up. Two areas should be the foci of continuing medical education for US physicians. Firstly, physicians need to be reminded that centrally acting alpha 2-agonists are optimally used as supplemental antihypertensive drugs rather than as initial agents, which is how some physicians utilised them. Secondly, if once-daily administration is used to promote patient compliance, physicians should be aware that, of the frequently prescribed first-line antihypertensive drugs, hydrochlorothiazide, chlorthalidone and atenolol presently have substantially less expensive once-daily dosage forms than other diuretics or beta-blockers, calcium antagonists or ACE inhibitors.     

Antihypertensive drugs and the sympathetic nervous system

Hypertension has been associated with several modifications in the function and regulation of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS). Although it is unclear whether this dysfunction is primary or secondary to the development of hypertension, these alterations are considered to play an important role in the evolution, maintenance, and development of hypertension and its target organ damage. Several pharmacological antihypertensive classes are currently available. The main drugs that have been clearly shown to affect SNS function are beta-blockers, alpha-blockers, and centrally acting drugs. On the contrary, the effects of ACE inhibitors (ACE-Is), AT1 receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and diuretics on SNS function remain controversial. These properties are pharmacologically and pathophysiologically relevant and should be considered in the choice of antihypertensive treatments and combination therapies in order to achieve, beyond optimal blood pressure control, a normalization of SNS physiology and the most effective prevention of target organ damage.     

Discordant effects of beta-blockade on central aortic systolic and brachial systolic blood pressure: considerations beyond the cuff

The role of beta-blockers in uncomplicated hypertension has been challenged recently. Compared with other antihypertensives, beta-blockers are less effective for preventing cardiovascular events in patients with uncomplicated hypertension. Moreover, a recent meta-analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials concluded that atenolol is not more efficacious than placebo for preventing cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension. Although these agents lower blood pressure measured conventionally over the brachial artery with a blood pressure cuff, they do not exert a commensurate effect on blood pressure in the central aorta. Central aortic blood pressure and aortic augmentation index are strong predictors of left ventricular hypertrophy, an independent risk factor for cardiovascular events. Emerging data are illuminating the antihypertensive paradox whereby antihypertensive agents may elicit discordant effects on central and peripheral blood pressure and hemodynamics. Vasodilatory antihypertensives, such as renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and calcium channel blockers, elicit reductions in central aortic blood pressure equal to or greater than that in the brachial artery. Conversely, beta-blockers lower central aortic blood pressure to a lesser degree even when blood pressure measured by sphygmomanometry is reduced substantially. Given the strong relationship between central aortic blood pressure and target organ damage, the effectiveness of beta-blockers may be overestimated in practice on the basis of conventional blood pressure measurements alone. Differences in central and peripheral blood pressure may account for the lack of cardiovascular protection afforded by beta-blockers in clinical trials and could account for a portion of the apparent "benefit beyond blood pressure" reduction with other classes of antihypertensive agents. Future studies should aim to better clarify the role of central aortic blood pressure in the treatment of hypertension. In the meantime, the effects of antihypertensive drugs on blood pressure "beyond the brachial blood pressure cuff" should be considered when prescribing antihypertensive agents for a patient.     

2005～2007年常熟市3家二甲医院抗高血压药利用分析

目的：分析2005～2007年常熟市3家二甲医院抗高血压药用药现状和发展趋势,评价药物利用情况。方法：对上述3家医院目前临床应用的抗高血压药,从销售金额和用药频度（DDDs）进行排序。结果：3年来抗高血压药销售金额和DDDs均有不同程度的增长。DDDs排序显示,氨氯地平、厄贝沙坦、贝那普利是3家医院降压治疗临床选择频率最高的品种。在金额和DDDs排序前列的品种主要包括钙通道阻滞剂（CCB）、血管紧张素受体阻断剂（ARB）、血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂（ACEI）和β-受体阻滞剂、利尿剂类药物。结论：采用不同的药物治疗策略,在良好控制血压的同时兼顾保护靶器官,已成为上述3家医院降压治疗的主流趋势。     

Efficacy and tolerability of the perindopril/indapamide combination therapy for hypertension: the PRIMUS study

BACKGROUND: Tight blood pressure (BP) control is required to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the first line combination perindopril/indapamide in hypertension in daily practice. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, observational trial, 1892 general practitioners in Germany recruited patients with hypertension (n = 8023; mean age 59.6 years, 48.1% males, body mass index 27.6 kg/m2, systolic BP >or= 140 mmHg and/or diastolic BP >or= 90 mmHg) between October 2002 and December 2004. Patients received perindopril 2 mg/indapamide 0.625 mg for 12 weeks. BP measured in the general practice setting, safety, and tolerability were evaluated after 4 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: At baseline, most patients had moderate to severe hypertension (78%); initial BP was 164.6/95.8 mmHg. At inclusion, 38% of the patients were newly diagnosed hypertensives (mean BP 166.1/97.2 mmHg) and 58% of patients had uncontrolled BP despite preexisting antihypertensive treatment (163.5/94.9 mmHg). Previous treatment consisted of beta-blockers (49.5%), ACE inhibitors (36.4%), calcium-antagonists (29.3%), diuretics (28.8%), AT-I receptor antagonists (7.1%), and other treatments (8.1%). In the entire study cohort, treatment with perindopril/indapamide significantly decreased systolic BP (27.9 mmHg), diastolic BP (13.7 mmHg), and pulse pressure (14.2 mmHg), compared with baseline (p < 0.0001); 96% of patients responded to treatment and in 50% of patients BP was normalized (< 140/90 mmHg). Treatment dose was doubled in 9.5% of patients. Similar results were found in various subgroup analyses (newly diagnosed patients, the elderly, and patients with isolated systolic hypertension, additional cardiovascular risk factors, associated diseases, or target organ damage). The most frequent adverse events (< 1% of patients) were dry cough and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: The open-label, observational study PRIMUS, extends the existing evidence that the first line combination treatment of hypertension with perindopril/indapamide is effective, safe, and well tolerated in a representative cross-section of patients with newly diagnosed or pretreated but uncontrolled hypertension in daily practice.     

The cost effectiveness of ACE inhibitors as first-line antihypertensive therapy

BACKGROUND: Current hypertension guidelines differ in their recommendations for first-line antihypertensive therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of ACE inhibitor therapy as antihypertensive first-line therapy as compared with conventional antihypertensive therapy with beta-adrenoceptor antagonists or diuretics. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on data from randomised trials and observational studies comparing the effectiveness of ACE inhibitor and conventional antihypertensive therapy, we constructed a Markov model to compare four strategies in the management of uncomplicated hypertension: (i) prescribing ACE inhibitor therapy to all patients; (ii) prescribing conventional therapy to all patients; (iii) individualised antihypertensive therapy based on the presence or absence of left ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiography (ECG); or (iv) individualised antihypertensive therapy based on the presence or absence of left ventricular hypertrophy on echocardiography. METHODS: Cost data were derived from the medical literature and focus groups, and utility values were derived from patients on antihypertensive monotherapy. All costs were calculated in 1999 Canadian dollars, but are reported in US dollars according to the 1999 purchasing power parity rate for medical and healthcare. The effectiveness of ACE inhibitor therapy in the presence of left ventricular hypertrophy was derived from observational studies. The time horizon was over a lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Third-party payer. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of men aged 40 years without cardiovascular comorbidity requiring antihypertensive drug therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, all four strategies resulted in expected discounted QALYs that differed from each other only at the third decimal point (i.e. less than 0.003). Given the uncertainties in the variable estimates and the small size of the differences, these differences are extremely small and unlikely to represent real differences. Even accepting the small gains as real, the resulting cost-effectiveness ratios are unattractively high: $US 200,000 per QALY gained for the echocardiography strategy (compared with ECG), and $US 700,000 for the "ACE inhibitor for all" strategy (compared with ECG). The incremental cost effectiveness of prescribing ACE inhibitor therapy to everybody was never less than $US 100,000/QALY in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing ACE inhibitors as antihypertensive first-line therapy in patients without cardiovascular morbidity cannot be recommended at the present time unless the acquisition costs of ACE inhibitors become substantially more attractive.     

Delapril plus indapamide: a review of the combination in the treatment of hypertension

Although many data indicate that the management of hypertension has improved over the last two decades, there is still a large proportion of hypertensive individuals who do not receive adequate management of their blood pressure (BP). Combination therapy with two or more antihypertensive agents from different drug classes is increasingly being recognised as the most effective means of achieving target BP values by pharmacological means, particularly in the large number of patients in whom monotherapy proves to be ineffective. Use of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor combined with a diuretic is a well established antihypertensive combination that is very effective because of the different, yet synergistic, mechanisms of actions of agents from these two drug classes. Delapril is a potent antihypertensive ACE inhibitor, and indapamide is a thiazide-like diuretic with additional antihypertensive properties. The combination of delapril and indapamide provides renoprotective effects, and indapamide is also cardioprotective. Use of these two drugs together is therefore a rational selection for combination therapy, and one that has consistently demonstrated lowering of BP to target values with a level of efficacy that is at least as good as other combinations of ACE inhibitors and diuretics. This combination has also been found to provide favourable effects on haemodynamic parameters, including left ventricular mass index and ejection fraction. Furthermore, combining an ACE inhibitor and a thiazide-type diuretic has been associated with a decreased risk of stroke and is recommended for patients with cerebrovascular disease, a setting in which the combination of delapril and indapamide has therapeutic potential. Because of the additive mechanisms of delapril and indapamide, the dose required for an effective antihypertensive effect is relatively low, and the combination is well tolerated at such doses. In particular, metabolic effects normally associated with diuretics are rare at the therapeutic dose of indapamide used in combination with delapril, making the combination suitable for patients with metabolic disorders in whom diuretic therapy would otherwise not be recommended. Delapril 30 mg and indapamide 2.5mg have been combined in a fixed combination, offering the convenience of a one-tablet-per-day antihypertensive drug regimen for most patients, which, along with good tolerability, helps to address the issue of noncompliance.     

Calcium-channel modulators for cardiovascular disease

It is generally accepted that hypertension doubles the risk of cardiovascular disease, of which coronary heart disease is the most common and lethal. Hypertension is a predisposing factor for the development of stroke, peripheral arterial disease, heart failure and end-state renal disease. Atherosclerosis-causing coronary heart disease is related to the severity of hypertension. Inhibition of calcium entry reduces the active tone of vascular smooth muscle and produces vasodilatation. This pharmacological action has been the basis for the use of calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) for the management of hypertension. Other drug families may achieve this: diuretics, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor antagonists. Cardiovascular hypertrophy and atherosclerosis are major complications related to high blood pressure. Cardiac hypertrophy is considered as an independent risk factor associated with abnormalities of diastolic function and can result in heart failure. Atherosclerosis is associated with activation of innate immunity. Atherosclerosis is expressing itself not only as coronary heart disease, but as a cerebrovascular and peripheral arterial disease. By impairing physiological vasomotor function, atherosclerosis includes ultimately necrosis of myocardium. CCBs reduce blood pressure. Do they prevent the progress of the main complications of hypertension? This major question is the matter of the present paper.