Comparative effects of a new cardioselective beta-blocker nebivolol and nifedipine sustained-release on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and plasma lipoproteins.

This double-blind, parallel-group study compared the effects of nebivolol, a novel cardioselective beta-blocker, with those of nifedipine sustained-release on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and plasma lipoprotein levels. After a washout period of 8 weeks, 51 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were randomized to double-blind treatment with either nebivolol 5 mg once a day (n = 26) or nifedipine sustained-release 20 mg bid (n = 25) over a period of 12 weeks. Both treatments produced similar and significant (P = .0001) reduction in office blood pressure as well as in 24-hour, work, awake, and sleep ambulatory blood pressure. The clinical response (diastolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg or decreased by greater than or equal to 10 mmHg) rate was 69% for nebivolol and 59% for nifedipine, respectively. Moreover, the nebivolol and nifedipine treatment-induced decreases in mean 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure were similar to the decreases in clinic blood pressure. Furthermore, the percentages of "blood pressure loads" (awake greater than 140/90 mmHg and asleep greater than 120/80 mmHg) were lowered significantly (P = .0001), from 60% to 29% with nebivolol and from 60% to 39% with nifedipine. Mean ambulatory heart rate was reduced (P = .0001) from 79 +/- 7 to 68 +/- 7 beats/minute during nebivolol therapy and from 80 +/- 9 to 79 +/- 7 (not significant) with nifedipine. Total plasma cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein levels decreased significantly (P less than .05) by 5 and 8%, respectively, after nebivolol treatment, and each decreased by 3% after nifedipine treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

硝苯地平缓释片、马来酸依那普利片和富马酸比索洛尔片对Ⅰ级高血压患者24 h血压的影响

目的：比较国产硝苯地平缓释片、马来酸依那普利片和富马酸比索洛尔片对Ⅰ级高血压患者的降压效果。方法：182例患者随机分为3组：硝苯地平缓释片组（20 mg,62例）、依那普利组（5 mg,60例）与比索洛尔组（5 mg,60例）,经过2周安慰剂导入期进入临床观察阶段,观察期4周。每组药物均为每日一次服用,并进行24 h动态心电、动态血压同时监测。结果：3种药物均能显著降低血压,硝苯地平缓释片、依那普利和比索洛尔组与治疗前相比,分别降低了（10±13）mm Hg,（19±11）mm Hg和（7±18）mm Hg;比索洛尔组降低24 h平均收缩压及白天平均舒张压的幅度大于硝苯地平缓释片组和依那普利组。结论：3种降压药每日一次服用,对Ⅰ级高血压患者均有明显降压疗效,且比索洛尔组疗效优于硝苯地平缓释片组及依那普利组。     

Placebo-controlled trial of once-a-day isradipine monotherapy in mild to moderately severe hypertension

The efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of isradipine, a new calcium antagonist vasodilator, was evaluated in a multicenter, placebo-controlled trial in hypertensive patients who had supine diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) 100-119 mm Hg. After a 3-week single-blind placebo washout patients randomly received either isradipine, 5 mg once daily, or a matching placebo; if SDBP remained greater than or equal to 95 mm Hg or less than or equal to 10 mm Hg below baseline at four weekly clinic visits, isradipine was increased at weekly intervals by 5 mg once daily up to 20 mg and maintained during weeks 5 and 6. At week 6 mean supine blood pressure 24 hours after dosing had declined from 163 +/- 20/105 +/- 5 (N = 78) to 146 +/- 17/92 +/- 7 mm Hg (N = 60) on isradipine, 14.5 mg once daily, and from 163 +/- 20/105 +/- 6 (N = 85) to 157 +/- 18/99 +/- 10 mm Hg (N = 64) on placebo (P less than .001 between groups). Standing blood pressure decreased from 159 +/- 20/104 +/- 8 to 144 +/- 18/93 +/- 11 mm Hg with isradipine and from 160 +/- 22/105 +/- 9 to 154 +/- 19/101 +/- 11 mm Hg with placebo (P less than .001 between groups) without signs or symptoms of postural hypotension. A SDBP less than or equal to 90 mm Hg or a greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg fall below baseline was achieved in 41 of 78 isradipine-treated (53%) and 18 of 85 placebo-treated subjects (21%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Once-daily verapamil in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension: a double-blind placebo-controlled dose-ranging study

Supine office blood pressures (SOBP) and 24-hour automated ambulatory blood pressure monitorings (AABPM) showed blood pressure reductions from a stable baseline to active treatment with 120-, 240-, and 480-mg doses of a new verapamil QD capsule (solid-spheroidal-oral once-daily drug-absorption system: (SODAS) in patients with mild-to-moderately severe (diastolic blood pressures 95-119 mm Hg) essential hypertension. Reductions were documented at 24 hours, hourly, and by the 24 hour average, using SOBP and AABPM, after the once-daily verapamil administration. Both SOBP and the 24-hour average by AABPM were significantly reduced from baseline by active verapamil treatment of 120-, 240-, and 480-mg doses. In comparison to verapamil QD (0 mg), blood pressure reductions from baseline to active treatment were significant at the 240- and 480-mg doses but not at the 120-mg dose. There was a significant linear dose response. This verapamil formulation (SODAS) was effective throughout the 24-hour period after once-daily dosing.     

Smooth blood pressure control obtained with extended-release felodipine in elderly patients with hypertension: evaluation by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

OBJECTIVE: To assess, by smoothness index (SI), distribution of the antihypertensive effect of extended-release (ER) felodipine over 24 hours in elderly patients with hypertension. METHODS: After a 4-week washout phase, 35 elderly patients (mean age 69 +/- 4 years) with mild-to-moderate hypertension received 2 weeks' treatment with ER felodipine 5mg once daily. The dosage of ER felodipine was doubled to 10 mg/day and given for a further 2 weeks in non-responders (sitting clinic blood pressure > 140/90mm Hg). The study had an open-label design with no placebo control. After each period, clinic and ambulatory blood pressures were measured. Trough-to-peak (T/P) ratio was computed by dividing the blood pressure (BP) change at trough (22 to 24 hours after drug intake) by the change at peak (2 adjacent hours with a maximal BP reduction between the second and eighth hour after drug intake). SI was calculated as the ratio between the average of the 24, hourly, treatment-induced BP changes and its standard deviation. RESULTS: After the initial 2-week treatment period, clinic and 24-hour ambulatory BP values were higher in non-responders (145 +/- 11/87 +/- 8 and 135 +/- 17/80 +/- 6mm Hg, respectively) than in responders (133 +/- 6/81 +/- 3 and 130 +/- 9/77 +/- 7mm Hg). In non-responders, clinic and 24-hour BP values were lowered after a further 2 weeks of treatment with ER felodipine 10 mg/day (128 +/- 11/78 +/- 6 and 128 +/- 12/75 +/- 5mm Hg). SI was high in responders (0.8 +/- 0.8/0.7 +/- 0.7 for systolic/diastolic BP) and low in non-responders (0.5 +/- 0.6/0.3 +/- 0.6) during the first 2-week treatment period. It increased in non-responders after an additional 2 weeks of treatment with ER felodipine 10 mg/day (1.0 +/- 0.8/0.7 +/- 0.6). Median T/P ratios were 0.73 and 0.61 (systolic BP and diastolic BP) in responders and 0.41 and 0.61 in non-responders after 2 weeks of treatment. At variance with SI, T/P ratios did not increase in non-responders after doubling the dosage of ER felodipine (0.34 and 0.18). ER felodipine did not increase 24-hour heart rate. A total of nine adverse events were recorded in six patients (17%), but no patients withdrew from the study. CONCLUSION: ER felodipine 5 to 10 mg/day smoothly and safely reduces 24-hour ambulatory BP in elderly patients with hypertension.     

Randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of amlodipine and valsartan in african-americans with hypertension using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of amlodipine and valsartan in African-American patients with hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison study. SETTING: University-affiliated cardiac center clinic. PATIENTS: Twenty African-Americans (12 men, 8 women), with a history of uncomplicated hypertension (blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 5 or 10 mg/day or valsartan 80 or 160 mg/day for 8-10 weeks, depending on response. Dosages were titrated to achieve a blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or below. For patients whose blood pressures were not controlled, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg/day was added to their regimens. Patients then underwent 24-hour ABPM. After an intervening washout period during which baseline blood pressure was reestablished, patients received the other treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean +/- SD baseline blood pressure before the two ABPM periods were 155 +/- 12/100 +/- 8 mm Hg and 156 +/- 11/101 +/- 9 mm Hg, respectively. Fifteen (75%) patients achieved goal blood pressure with amlodipine and 14 (70%) with valsartan (p=0.62). Final daily dosages were as follows: amlodipine 5 mg in nine patients, 10 mg in five patients, and 10 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide in six patients; valsartan 80 mg in nine patients, 160 mg in four patients, and 160 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide in seven patients. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was not completed in three patients due to adverse effects: headache and dizziness (one patient each, amlodipine and valsartan) and hyperkalemia (one patient, valsartan). Four patients (20%) in each treatment group had drug-related adverse effects. Results of ABPM including averages for 24-hour, daytime, nighttime, first 4 hours, and last 8 hours, and trough:peak ratios were not significantly different between the amlodipine- and valsartan-based treatments. CONCLUSION: Based on both clinic blood pressure measurements and ABPM data, amlodipine and valsartan produced similar reductions in blood pressure in African-American patients with uncomplicated hypertension.     

Sustained antihypertensive activity of diltiazem SR: double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

A new polymeric matrix technology provides a sustained-release formulation of diltiazem hydrochloride (diltiazem SR) suitable for once-daily therapy. The efficacy and safety of diltiazem SR were evaluated in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. After a single-blind, placebo lead-in period, 275 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were assigned to receive placebo or diltiazem SR 120, 240, 360, or 480 mg once daily for 4 weeks. The efficacy evaluation was based on office and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Twenty-four hours after the last dose in the 4-week, double-blind treatment period, the mean reduction from baseline in supine diastolic blood pressure ranged from 5.1 to 10.6 mm Hg in the diltiazem SR 120- to 480-mg groups, resulting in a significant linear trend across all treatments (P less than .001). Reductions in systolic blood pressure were similar. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, performed in 138 patients, confirmed the dose-response relationship and showed consistent antihypertensive activity throughout the 24-hour dosing interval. The percentage of patients reporting adverse events was similar in the placebo- and active-treated groups. The results of this study indicate that diltiazem SR is well tolerated, lowers blood pressure in a dose-related manner, and provides sustained activity throughout the 24-hour dosing interval.     

Once vs twice daily administration of a fixed combination of captopril plus hydrochlorothiazide in essential hypertension: a double-blind crossover study in known responders to a standard combination.

The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, crossover trial was to compare the hypotensive effects of a fixed combination of captopril (C) 50 mg and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg (C 50/HCTZ 25) once daily with those of a fixed combination of C 25 mg and HCTZ 12.5 mg (C 25/HCTZ 12.5) twice daily. We studied 199 patients (108 M, 91 F) with mild to moderate essential hypertension whose BP was already controlled by the co-administration of C 25 mg and HCTZ 12.5 mg twice daily. They were randomly assigned to either C 25/HCTZ 12.5 twice daily during the first 6 weeks and C 50/HCTZ 25 once daily during the second 6 weeks or C 50/HCTZ 25 once daily followed by C 25/HCTZ 12.5 twice daily. Both regimens showed comparable efficacy on office diastolic BP (91.6 vs 91.3 mm Hg). Systolic BP was slightly but significantly higher (P = 0.02) with the once daily formulation (141.2 vs 139.1 mm Hg). Fixed combinations once daily and twice daily resulted in identical working ambulatory BP (133.7 +/- 13/83.6 +/- 8 mm Hg vs 132.4 +/- 11/83.3 +/- 7 mm Hg) without affecting heart rate. Adverse events were reported by 16% of patients and cough was the most common occurring in 7%. In conclusion, these results indicate that the fixed combination of C 50/HCTZ 25 given once daily controls office and working BP as well as the fixed combination C 25/HCTZ 12.5 given twice daily in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

A placebo-controlled dose-response study of felodipine extended release in hypertensive patients

This placebo-controlled study assessed antihypertensive effect and tolerability of two dose levels of an extended release (ER) formulation of felodipine (Plendil), given once daily to patients in primary health care. The patients had mild to moderate hypertension and were randomized to receive felodipine ER (FER) 20 mg (n = 50), FER 10 mg (n = 50), or placebo (n = 51) in a 4-week, double-blind, parallel-group multicenter study. After 4 weeks, the 24-h reduction in supine diastolic BP (DBP) was greater (p less than 0.01) in both FER groups (7 +/- 6 and 8 +/- 5 mm Hg) than in the placebo group (4 +/- 6 mm Hg). The 24-h reduction in supine systolic BP (SBP) was greater (p less than 0.01) in the FER 20-mg group (14 +/- 11 mm Hg), but not in the FER 10-mg group, than in the placebo group (8 +/- 11 mm Hg). No significant difference in blood pressure (BP) was found between FER 10 and 20 mg. Heart rate (HR) did not differ between any of the groups, nor did body weight or routine laboratory parameters. During felodipine treatment, 17 patients (12 receiving FER 20 mg) were withdrawn mostly because of vasodilatory side effects such as headache and ankle edema. We conclude that FER 10 mg and 20 mg once daily had an antihypertensive 24-h effect and that FER 10 mg may be more suitable as initial dose.     

Comparison of 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Data in Hypertensive Patients Switched from Nifedipine-GITS to Nifedipine-CC

Study Objective. To evaluate 24-hour blood pressure control and frequency of adverse effects in patients with mild to moderate hypertension switched from nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (Nif-GITS) to nifedipine coat core (Nif-CC). Design. Open-label, prospective, switch study. Setting. University-affiliated outpatient cardiology clinic. Subjects. Twenty patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension, who were taking Nif-GITS 30, 60, or 90 mg/day for 8 weeks or longer. Interventions. Patients stabilized with Nif-GITS 30, 60, or 90 mg were monitored over 24 hours with an ambulatory blood pressure monitor and were then switched to an equivalent dosage of Nif-CC. After 8 weeks ± 1 week taking Nif-CC, they were again monitored with a 24-hour blood pressure monitor. The 24-hour blood pressure load (percentage of values > 135/85 mm Hg for 24 hrs), daytime blood pressure load (percentage of values > 140/90 mm Hg from 7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.), nighttime blood pressure load (percentage of values > 120/80 mm Hg from 10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.), diurnal blood pressure variation, average 24-hour blood pressure, daytime blood pressure, nighttime blood pressure, mean blood pressure for the first 4 hours, and last 8 hours of the dosing interval were measured. Adverse effects such as headache, dizziness, and edema were also reported. Measurements and Main Results. No differences in average 24 hour-blood pressure readings were observed but significant differences in blood pressure control during the first 4 and last 8 hours of the dosing interval were seen. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were higher after approximately 16 hours in patients switched from Nif-GITS to Nif-CC. Although Nif-CC caused a greater initial response, it was less effective than Nif-GITS after 16 hours. This could explain the lack of differences in average 24-hour blood pressure values between formulations. Of the 20 patients, 20% experienced increased headaches, 20% showed signs of increased peripheral edema, and 10% reported occasional dizziness after switching agents. Three patients discontinued Nif-CC, two as ordered by their primary care physician and one on his own due to headache. Conclusion. This study suggests that patients switched from Nif-GITS to Nif-CC could experience increased blood pressure during the night or toward the end of the dosing interval. They could also experience adverse effects such as headache, edema, and dizziness, which could result in more physician visits and put patients with other disease states such as coronary heart disease at increased risk.     

Antihypertensive Effect and Tolerability of Perindopril in Indian Hypertensive and Type 2 Diabetic Patients: 1-Year Randomised, Double-Blind, Parallel Study vs Atenolol

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the antihypertensive effect and acceptability of a perindopril-based group with that of an atenolol-based group in Indian hypertensive type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: 100 ambulant patients aged between 35 and 69 years were recruited into this monocentric, randomised, double-blind study in two parallel groups for 1 year after a 1-month washout period on placebo. The setting was a tertiary care institution. PATIENTS: All patients had stable, essential hypertension between 95mm Hg and 115mm Hg, type 2 diabetes with glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1C)) <12%, and albuminuria between 300mg and 3.5g/24 hours. There were 50 patients per treatment group and two patient population groups were studied, intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP). The former constituted all patients, whilst the latter included those without major protocol deviation and who completed the 12-month study. INTERVENTIONS: The study drugs were perindopril 4 to 8mg once daily or atenolol 50 to 100mg once daily. In each group therapeutic adjustment was planned by doubling the dose and then by the addition of hydrochlorothiazide 25mg daily. Nifedipine 30 to 60mg daily was subsequently added if the desired drop in blood pressure was not obtained. The ITT group was analysed by Student's t-test, and a 2-way analysis of variance was performed for the PP population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A comparison of the control of hypertension, biochemical abnormalities, blood sugar and adverse effects was performed in the atenolol group versus the perindopril group. RESULTS: On single-dose therapy after 1 month 17 patients (60%) had normal blood pressure [diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 相似文献   

A dose-finding, placebo-controlled study on extended-release felodipine once daily in treatment of hypertension

Hypertensive patients received a beta-blocker plus placebo once daily for 4 weeks. If their diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was then 95-115 mm Hg, they were randomized to receive, in addition to the beta-blocker, placebo (n = 36), felodipine-extended release (ER) 10 mg (n = 36), or felodipine-ER 20 mg (n = 37) in a 4-week double-blind parallel-group trial. All medication was administered once daily and, when BP was measured 24 h after the last dose, felodipine-ER 10 mg reduced DBP by 14 +/- 9 mm Hg (mean +/- SD) from a mean of 103 mm Hg and felodipine-ER 20 mg reduced DBP by 18 +/- 9 mm Gg from 101 mm Hg. The reductions in DBP with both doses of felodipine were greater than reductions with placebo (5 +/- 8 mm Hg, from 102 mm Hg--both p less than 0.001). At the end of the study, 21% of patients receiving placebo had a DBP less than or equal to 90 mm Hg. In contrast, 69% of patients receiving felodipine-ER 10 mg and 82% receiving 20 mg attained this level. More than 90% of patients receiving 10 mg felodipine-ER once daily had a reduction in DBP greater than 5 mm Hg 24 h postdose. Felodipine-ER was well tolerated. Felodipine-ER once daily is an effective antihypertensive drug for patients who require therapy in addition to a beta-blocker; the tolerability in this study was good, and a starting dose greater than 10 mg once daily is not indicated.     

Long-acting lacidipine versus short-acting nifedipine in the treatment of asymptomatic acute blood pressure increase

We compared antihypertensive efficacy and safety of a single administration of equipotent doses of lacidipine versus nifedipine in the hypertensive urgencies. Twenty-nine asymptomatic essential hypertensive patients (nine men, 20 women) with a mean age of 55.03+/-11.19 years and baseline diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of > or =120 mm Hg after resting 30 min, not taking antihypertensive drugs for the last 24 h, were randomized in a single-blind fashion to receive lacidipine, 4 mg (LCD, 15 patients) or short-acting nifedipine, 20 mg (NFD, 14 patients) in a single dose. Blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) were taken every 30 min during the first 8 h and every 2 h until 24 h of follow-up. Baseline BP values were similar in the two groups (LCD, 222.5+/-32.8/124.6+/-8.4 mm Hg vs. NFD, 215.9+/-20.6/128+/-7.7 mm Hg; p = NS). Both drugs promoted a significant reduction of systolic blood pressure (SBP; 169.6+/-27.8 vs. 170.6+/-25.3 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; 104.1+/-16 vs. 102.9+/-12.4 mm Hg) after 8 h. However, either SBP (165+/-27.3 vs. 190.6+/-18.2 mm Hg; p = 0.008) and DBP (99.9+/-12.3 vs. 117.2+/-11.4 mm Hg; p = 0.001) were significantly higher in the NFD group after 24-h dosing. Eleven patients in the LCD group had a decrease in BP >25% of the baseline value both 8 and 24 h after the dose. Although 10 patients showed the same response in the NFD group 8 h after the dose, only four patients maintained these values at 24 h. One patient treated with NFD had a transient cerebrovascular ischemic attack. No adverse effects were observed in the LCD group. We conclude that the long-acting calcium antagonist lacidipine was more effective than the short-acting nifedipine in both controlling BP and maintaining this BP reduction over 8 h in essential hypertensive patients with acute asymptomatic BP increase.     

Cross-over comparison of nifedipine Oros and felodipine extended release with blind 24 h ambulatory blood pressure assessments

1. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of nifedipine Oros and felodipine extended release (ER) in controlling 24 h ambulatory blood pressures (ABP) in hypertensive patients. 2. The study was a randomized cross-over design with a 2 week open placebo run-in phase and two observer-blind treatment periods. 3. Subjects were males and females, aged between 18 and 65 years, suffering from mild to moderate essential hypertension with a sitting mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) within the range of 95-114 mmHg. Twenty-three subjects were randomized to treatment; 15 patients completed the study. 4. Treatment intervention was 2 weeks of placebo followed by either 30 mg nifedipine OROS once daily or 5 mg felodipine ER once daily for 6 weeks, which was titrated up to 60 mg nifedipine OROS daily or 10 mg felodipine ER daily after 2 weeks of treatment on the lower doses if the DBP was > 90 mmHg. The main outcome measure was 24 h ABP after 6 weeks of active treatment, evaluated by an independent observer blinded as to treatment allocation. 5. Compared with placebo, mean (+/- SD) 24 h DBP was reduced by 6.2 +/- 6.8 and 5.2 +/- 5.1 mmHg after nifedipine and felodipine, respectively. The 24 h mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) fell by 11.8 +/- 10.9 and 10.1 +/- 8.2 mmHg for nifedipine and felodipine, respectively, compared with placebo. There were no significant differences between the two active treatments in the reduction of DBP or SBP during the 24 h period, daytime or night-time. 6. Similar antihypertensive effects are achieved with nifedipine Oros and felodipine ER when doses are individually titrated, with no significant differences between the two treatments.     

Unpredictability of blood pressures recorded outside the clinic in the treated hypertensive patient

Ambulatory blood pressure profiles were obtained with the Remler M2000, a portable semiautomatic blood pressure recorder, in 38 chronically treated hypertensive patients who continued to have blood pressures measured by their physician greater than 140 mm Hg systolic and greater than 89 mm Hg diastolic. On the average, ambulatory recorded blood pressures were significantly lower (151/94 +/- 26/13 mm Hg; mean +/- SD) than those determined at the clinic not only by a physician (179/109 +/- 22/11 mm Hg), but by a nurse (163/101 +/- 24/10 mm Hg). Individual mean recorded ambulatory blood pressures could be predicted neither from office readings obtained by a physician nor from those measured by a nurse. Because of this unpredictability of blood pressures prevailing outside the clinic, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring seems to be very useful, if not necessary, in assessing the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs. By this technique, it may be possible to select patients who do not need a change of treatment although their blood pressure levels remain persistently elevated in the physician's office.     

Nebivolol in the management of essential hypertension: a review

Nebivolol is a lipophilic beta1-blocker. It is devoid of intrinsic sympathomimetic or membrane stabilising activity but appears to have nitric oxide-mediated vasodilatory effects. Nebivolol is administered as a racemic mixture of equal proportions of d- and l-enantiomers. The drug does not significantly influence glucose or plasma lipid metabolism and appears to have a protective effect on left ventricular function. At the recommended dosage (5 mg once daily) nebivolol reduces resting diastolic blood pressure as effectively as standard therapeutic dosages of atenolol, metoprolol, lisinopril and nifedipine, as shown in comparative trials. Nebivolol reduced blood pressure significantly more than enalapril 10 mg daily in the short but not the long term, although the enalapril dose may not have been optimal. Nebivolol has an additive effect in combination with hydrochlorothiazide. Standing blood pressure and/or mean 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure is significantly and similarly reduced with nebivolol, atenolol or nifedipine. Nebivolol tended to prevent increases in early morning blood pressure better than nifedipine. Overall response rates to nebivolol therapy (a decrease in sitting/supine diastolic blood pressure to < or = 90 mm Hg or a 10% or > or = 10 mm Hg fall in diastolic blood pressure) ranged from 58 to 81% after 4 to 52 weeks' treatment. In comparative studies, response rates were greater in nebivolol than in enalapril or metoprolol recipients, but not significantly different from those in atenolol or nifedipine recipients. Nebivolol 5 mg once daily is well tolerated in patients with hypertension. Adverse events are infrequent, transient and mild to moderate. Those reported most often include headache, fatigue, paraesthesias and dizziness. Several studies reported no signs of orthostatic hypotension with nebivolol. Comparative trials revealed no significant differences between the frequency and severity of adverse events in patients receiving nebivolol, atenolol, enalapril or placebo; however, the overall incidence of adverse events was greater with nifedipine or metoprolol. Some atenolol or enalapril, but not nebivolol, recipients reported impotence or decreased libido during therapy. CONCLUSION: Current evidence indicates that nebivolol 5 mg once daily is a well tolerated beta-blocker, which is as effective as once daily atenolol and other classes of antihypertensive agents. It may therefore be recommended as a useful alternative first-line treatment option for the management of patients with mild to moderate uncomplicated essential hypertension.     

24-hour anti-ischaemic action with once daily nifedipine

Summary The ability of a fatty-alcohol matrix, slow-release tablet of nifedipine 60 mg to maintain a 24-hour antiischaemic action in the fixed dose of 60 mg once daily has been investigated in a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.12 normotensive patients with angiographically proven coronary artery disease (stenosis of at least one major vessel 70%) were studied. The anti-ischaemic response was assessed over a period of 4 days as changes in the exercise-induced ST-segment depression 6 h and 24 h postdose, and ST segment changes in 24-h ambulatory ECGs.A measurable anti-ischaemic response was observed in 8 of the 12 patients. Exercise-induced ST-segment depression 6 h after the administration of nifedipine was reduced by 30% compared to placebo, and there was still a measurable anti-ischaemic response 24-h post-dosing. Both responses were independent of changes in exercise blood pressure. In 7 patients with ischaemic episodes in the 24-h ECGs, nifedipine treatment had only a minor effect on the intensity and duration of ischaemia.It is concluded that a significant anti-ischaemic effect lasting 24 h could be demonstrated using effort-induced ST-segment changes in patients with angiographically proven coronary heart disease, who were treated once daily with nifedipine 60 mg as a fatty-alcohol slow release tablet.     

Combination of lisinopril and nifedipine GITS increases blood pressure control compared with single drugs in essential hypertensive patients

The present study was designed to evaluate the effect of combination therapy using the angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor lisinopril and the dihydropyridine calcium antagonist nifedipine GITS on the degree and homogeneity of 24-hour blood pressure reduction in essential hypertensive patients. After a 4-week placebo run-in period, 51 patients (mean age, 54.4 +/- 9.4 years) with essential hypertension and clinic diastolic blood pressure between 105 and 115 mm Hg were randomized to 4-week treatment with lisinopril (20 mg), nifedipine GITS (30 mg), or their combination according to a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Trough clinic blood pressure and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure were measured at the end of the run-in period and after 4 weeks of treatment. In addition to clinic and 24-hour average blood pressure reduction, the trough-to-peak ratio and the smoothness index, a new measure for the homogeneity of blood pressure reduction, were also calculated. Although both lisinopril and nifedipine GITS produced a significant reduction in clinic and 24-hour average blood pressure values, the reduction obtained with the combination was significantly (P < 0.001) greater. Moreover, the combination therapy increased (P < 0.01) the smoothness index as compared with each single drug for both systolic (lisinopril, 1.02; nifedipine GITS, 1.1; combination, 1.76) and diastolic (lisinopril, 0.98; nifedipine GITS, 0.87; combination, 1.54) blood pressure values, whereas trough-to-peak ratio values (expressed as median) for systolic (lisinopril, 0.41; nifedipine GITS, 0.52; combination, 0.55) and diastolic (lisinopril, 0.35; nifedipine GITS, 0.40; combination, 0.49) blood pressure values were not significantly increased by the combination therapy. Thus, antihypertensive treatment with the combination of lisinopril and nifedipine GITS is more effective and balanced over the 24 hours than the combination components administered alone, confirming that the smoothness index is superior to the trough-to-peak ratio in assessing homogeneity of pharmacologic blood pressure reduction.     

Control of blood pressure in hypertensive patients with felodipine extended release or nifedipine retard.

1. This multicentre hospital study compared the antihypertensive efficacy and the tolerability of once daily felodipine extended release (ER) with twice daily nifedipine retard (R) in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled on metoprolol monotherapy. 2. One hundred patients, aged 20-70 years, whose seated diastolic blood pressure was 100-115 mmHg after 4 to 6 weeks of metoprolol (200 mg day-1) monotherapy, were randomised, double-blind, to receive felodipine ER 10 mg once daily or nifedipine R 20 mg twice daily for 8 weeks. The dosage of felodipine or nifedipine was doubled if seated diastolic blood pressure exceeded 95 mmHg, 2 or 4 weeks after randomisation. Metoprolol 200 mg once daily was taken throughout the trial. 3. Fifty-one patients received felodipine ER and 49 nifedipine R; 46 and 45 respectively completed the 8 week trial. About half of patients on each treatment needed the higher dose. The baseline characteristics of the felodipine and nifedipine groups were generally well balanced. 4. Seated diastolic blood pressure was reduced by 17 mmHg for felodipine (24 h post-dose) and by 9 mmHg for nifedipine (12 h post-dose), a difference between treatments of 8 mmHg (95% confidence interval 5 to 12 mmHg, P less than 0.0001). The attained blood pressures at the end of the study (felodipine 90 +/- 10, mmHg, mean +/- s.d.; nifedipine 95 +/- 10) were also significantly different (95% confidence interval for the 5 mmHg difference, -9 to -1 mmHg, P less than 0.02).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

A double-blind randomized cross-over study of the efficacy and tolerability of nifedipine and nitrendipine in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension.

1. In order to examine whether nitrendipine was superior to slow release nifedipine as monotherapy in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension, the two agents were administered to 22 patients in a double-blind randomized cross-over study, incorporating low and titrated dose regimes. 2. Six patients failed to complete the study because of vasodilator side-effects such as headache, flushing and ankle swelling. Three were taking nitrendipine and three took nifedipine and all withdrawals occurred at the introduction of the drug. 3. Both agents reduced blood pressure in the 16 patients who completed the study, and neither agent was superior to the other; mean blood pressure after the placebo phase was 177 +/- 5.5/100 +/- 2.6 mm Hg supine and 175 +/- 5.3/113 +/- 2.4 mm Hg standing. At the end of therapy with nifedipine pressures were 160 +/- 4.0/91 +/- 3.0 mm Hg supine and 158 +/- 4.6/103 +/- 2.7 mm Hg standing. After 8 weeks treatment with nitrendipine blood pressures were 162 +/- 4.4/90 +/- 2.9 mm Hg supine and 161 +/- 6.2/104 +/- 2.7 mm Hg standing. Comparisons of these attained blood pressures on both agents showed no statistically significant differences. 4. Nitrendipine did not appear to be effective on a once daily basis.