Lercanidipine : a review of its efficacy in the management of hypertension

Lercanidipine (Zanidip) is a vasoselective dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist that causes systemic vasodilation by blocking the influx of calcium ions through L-type calcium channels in cell membranes. It is a highly lipophilic drug that exhibits a slower onset and longer duration of action than other calcium channel antagonists. Furthermore, lercanidipine may have antiatherogenic activity unrelated to its antihypertensive effect.In two large, nonblind, noncomparative studies involving approximately 16 000 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, systolic blood pressure (BP) [SBP] and diastolic BP (DBP) were significantly reduced after 12 weeks' treatment with lercanidipine 10-20 mg/day. Furthermore, in the largest study, 64% of patients were responders (DBP <90 mm Hg) after 12 weeks of treatment and an additional 32% had their BP normalised (BP <140/90 mm Hg). In comparative trials, lercanidipine 10-20 mg/day was as effective as nifedipine slow release (SR) 20-40 mg twice daily, amlodipine 10 mg/day, felodipine 10-20 mg/day, nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) 30-60 mg once daily or verapamil SR 240 mg/day at reducing SBP and DBP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension after 2-16 weeks of therapy. In addition, 4 weeks of lercanidipine therapy (10 mg/day) was as effective as captopril 25mg twice daily, atenolol 50 mg/day or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg/day.Lercanidipine 5-30 mg/day effectively decreased BP in elderly patients (aged >60 years) with mild-to-moderate hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension to the same extent as amlodipine 5-10 mg/day, nifedipine GITS 30-60 mg/day or lacidipine 2-4 mg/day after 24-26 weeks of therapy. In addition, a limited number of studies suggest that lercanidipine may have antihypertensive efficacy in patients with severe or resistant hypertension, in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and in postmenopausal women with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Lercanidipine is well tolerated, with most treatment-emergent events related to vasodilation. Common adverse events included headache, flushing and peripheral oedema. Importantly, the incidence of vasodilatory oedema was significantly lower in patients receiving lercanidipine than in those receiving some other calcium channel antagonists. CONCLUSION: Once-daily lercanidipine is an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive agent in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.     

Clinical Experience with Perindopril in Elderly Hypertensive Patients

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of perindopril in a subgroup of 3010 elderly (> or =65 years) hypertensive patients, who participated in a large US general practice-based community trial. METHODS: All patients received open-label perindopril 4 mg once a day for 6 weeks. After 6 weeks the dosage was either maintained (group I) or increased to 8 mg/day (group II) based on the physician's assessment of blood pressure (BP) response. Patients were then followed for another 6 weeks for a total study duration of 12 weeks. RESULTS: Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics revealed a higher proportion of women, longer duration of hypertension and higher baseline systolic BP (SBP) among elderly than young (<65 years, n = 7332) hypertensive patients. A clinically relevant BP reduction of similar magnitude was obtained in elderly and young patients with perindopril monotherapy. At week 12, the mean reduction in BP from baseline was 18.4/8.7 mm Hg in the elderly and 17.5/11.3 mm Hg in the young. Elderly patients with hypertension not responding adequately to the 4 mg/day dosage at week 6 had a BP reduction of 6.3/3.6 mm Hg (group II). Up-titration to an 8 mg/day dosage for another 6 weeks gave an additional 8.9/3.5 mm Hg reduction resulting in a total reduction of 15.2/7.1 mm Hg from baseline. A similar magnitude of increase in response to up-titration of perindopril was seen in young patients. BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) on perindopril monotherapy was achieved in 41.4% of elderly and 51.9% of young patients. In both age groups, up-titration to an 8.0 mg/day dosage in group II patients increased BP control by approximately 5-fold at week 12 (28.2% in the elderly and 36.4% in the young). A similar increased response on BP reduction and BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) with up-titration was seen in elderly subgroups of African American and diabetic patients. The 7th Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommended target goal of <130/80 mm Hg was achieved with perindopril monotherapy in 15.6% of hypertensive diabetic patients. Perindopril reduced BP effectively and safely in very elderly (> or =75 years) hypertensive patients. Perindopril was well tolerated in elderly patients including high-risk groups. The incidence of cough (7-10%), the most common symptom, was similar in all age groups. The low incidence of postural hypotension (< or =0.2%) observed in the elderly and very elderly further supports the good tolerance and safety profile of the drug.Data analysis from this study suggests that community physicians, in general, are less aggressive in controlling BP in the elderly and more inclined to treat or control diastolic BP than SBP. CONCLUSION: Perindopril treatment is effective and well tolerated in elderly patients with hypertension.     

Antihypertensive therapy in the prevention of stroke: what, when and for whom?

It is clear that antihypertensive regimens based on a low dose thiazide diuretic are effective for the primary prevention of stroke, particularly in older patients. In patients with diabetes mellitus who are at a higher risk of stroke, low dose thiazide diuretics and ACE inhibitors are of benefit. In those with isolated systolic hypertension, long-acting dihydropyridine calcium antagonists, in addition tolow dose thiazide diuretics, have also been shown to significantly reduce stroke risk. However, to attain sufficient lowering of blood pressure (BP) to most effectively reduce the risk of stroke (i.e. to levels of 140-150/80-85 mm Hg or lower and perhaps to <140/<80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes mellitus) combination therapy will be required. Immediately following stroke BP tends to fall spontaneously and therapy is probably not required in the great majority of patients during the first few days poststroke. If treatment is required shortly after this period, agents with a slow and gentle onset of action appear to be preferable; some preliminary data suggest that ACE inhibitors, despite lowering systemic BP, have no significant effect on cerebral blood flow. However, there is little clinical outcome data to clearly define the role of antihypertensive treatment in the early poststroke period. Whether existing antihypertensive therapy should be continued following stroke is also unclear, but such decisions may be influenced by factors such as the actual BP level, other indications for treatment (e.g. angina pectoris or cardiac failure) or the presence of dysphagia. There is more evidence to suggest that, some weeks to months following stroke (particularly a minor stroke), lower rather than higher BP is favourable, and better control of high BP with therapy reduces stroke recurrence.     

Blood pressure-lowering effect of nebivolol in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the YESTONO study

BACKGROUND: Effective blood pressure (BP)-lowering therapy is regarded as the most important intervention in diabetes mellitus. Nebivolol is commonly used for the treatment of hypertension, but to date there has been no study of its use in a large population of hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: A prospective, open-label, multicentre, post-marketing surveillance study was conducted in 2838 patients with arterial hypertension requiring intervention and concomitant type 2 diabetes, with or without other diseases. The therapeutic agent was nebivolol, either as monotherapy or as add-on therapy to other antihypertensive agents, over a minimum period of 3 months, with the primary endpoint being achievement of target BPs, that is, systolic BP < or = 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP < or = 90 mm Hg. Other endpoints were changes in metabolic parameters, effects on physical capability and tolerability during treatment. Statistical analysis was prospectively planned and conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Mean (SD) BP decreased from 156 (15.3)/92 (9.4)mm Hg to 135 (11)/81 (6.6)mm Hg during the treatment period, while mean (SD) heart rate decreased from 79 (10) to 71 (7) beats/min. Strict reduction of BP was associated with improvements in most metabolic parameters, including lipid levels, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and microalbuminuria. Maximum physical capability improved modestly. Most patients (85%) received nebivolol 5 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: Strict BP reduction in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes with or without other concomitant cardiovascular diseases is achieved with nebivolol 5 mg/day in most patients. The benefits of lowering BP with use of nebivolol are associated with improvements in most metabolic parameters and in maximum physical capability.     

Nifedipine in the treatment of hypertension in the elderly

The effect of nifedipine monotherapy, retard tablets, 20 mg bid, was evaluated in 23 hypertensive patients, mean age, 79 +/- 2 years. Twenty-one patients completed an eight-week study. Blood pressure (BP) decreased to 160/90 mm Hg in 15 patients; in four additional patients diastolic BP dropped by 15% to 28%. In a subset of five patients with isolated systolic hypertension, a significant reduction in systolic BP was noted. Side effects were relatively mild and only two patients discontinued the study. The results suggest that nifedipine monotherapy offers an alternative, logic, therapeutic approach to hypertension in the elderly.     

Treating hypertension in women of child-bearing age and during pregnancy.

Hypertension is found among 1 to 6% of young women. Treatment aims to decrease cardiovascular risk, the magnitude of which is less dependent on the absolute level of blood pressure (BP) than on associated cardiovascular risk factors, hypertension-related target organ damage and/or concomitant disease. Lifestyle modifications are recommended for all hypertensive individuals. The threshold of BP at which antihypertensive therapy should be initiated is based on absolute cardiovascular risk. Most young women are at low risk and not in need of antihypertensive therapy. All antihypertensive agents appear to be equally efficacious; choice depends on personal preference, social circumstances and an agent's effect on cardiovascular risk factors, target organ damage and/or concomitant disease. Although most agents are appropriate for, and tolerated well by, young women, another consideration remains that of pregnancy, 50% of which are unplanned. A clinician must be aware of a woman's method of contraception and the potential of an antihypertensive agent to cause birth defects following inadvertent exposure in early pregnancy. Conversely, if an oral contraceptive is effective and well tolerated, but the woman's BP becomes mildly elevated, continuing the contraceptive and initiating antihypertensive treatment may not be contraindicated, especially if the ability to plan pregnancy is important (e.g. in type 1 diabetes mellitus). No commonly used antihypertensive is known to be teratogenic, although ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor antagonists should be discontinued, and any antihypertensive drugs should be continued in pregnancy only if anticipated benefits outweigh potential reproductive risk(s). The hypertensive disorders of pregnancy complicate 5 to 10% of pregnancies and are a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Treatment aims to improve pregnancy outcome. There is consensus that severe maternal hypertension (systolic BP > or = 170mm Hg and/or diastolic BP > or = 110mm Hg) should be treated immediately to avoid maternal stroke, death and, possibly, eclampsia. Parenteral hydralazine may be associated with a higher risk of maternal hypotension, and intravenous labetalol with neonatal bradycardia. There is no consensus as to whether mild-to-moderate hypertension in pregnancy should be treated: the risks of transient severe hypertension, antenatal hospitalisation, proteinuria at delivery and neonatal respiratory distress syndrome may be decreased by therapy, but intrauterine fetal growth may also be impaired, particularly by atenolol. Methyldopa and other beta-blockers have been used most extensively. Reporting bias and the uncertainty of outcomes as defined warrant cautious interpretation of these findings and preclude treatment recommendations.     

BP goal achievement in patients with uncontrolled hypertension : results of the treat-to-target post-marketing survey with irbesartan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite the fact that high BP is a leading risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, BP goals are achieved in less than 10-30% of hypertensive patients. Irbesartan alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide has been shown to control BP in >70% of hypertensive patients in clinical trials. We set out to investigate the role in clinical practice of irbesartan in improving BP in uncontrolled hypertensive patients with a particular focus on patients with the metabolic syndrome through analysis of data from a post-marketing surveillance study. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective, post-marketing surveillance study was conducted over 9 months in 14 200 patients aged > or =18 years with previously uncontrolled hypertension (either receiving therapy or newly diagnosed), paying particular attention to a subgroup of patients receiving irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide as first-line combination therapy. BP was measured by a sphygmomanometer. The main outcome measures were systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) reduction, response rate (DBP reduction of > or =10mm Hg or to <90 mm Hg), and BP normalisation (SBP <140 and DBP <90 mm Hg) in patients treated with irbesartan alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide. Analyses per patient subgroup, previous medication and whether treatment was initiated by the treating physician as first-line combination therapy were conducted. The number and nature of adverse events were documented. RESULTS: Use of irbesartan 300 mg/day as monotherapy in previously uncontrolled patients resulted in a significant reduction in SBP/DBP (-26.8/-13.3mm Hg, p < 0.0001), which was comparable to the subgroup of patients with the metabolic syndrome (-26.3/-13.0mm Hg, p < 0.0001 vs baseline). Combination therapy (irbesartan 300 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg once daily) lowered BP by -27.9/-14.2mm Hg (p < 0.0001) in previously uncontrolled patients; again the subgroup of patients with the metabolic syndrome achieved a comparable BP reduction (-27.5/-14.1mm Hg, p < 0.0001 vs baseline). Overall, no linear dose-response relationship was observed. Use of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide as first-line combination therapy was effective (BP normalisation rates between 65.7% and 78.6%) and safe. The mean number of antihypertensive tablets taken was reduced and after a mean period of 9 months, 92% of patients were still taking irbesartan therapy. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that treatment with an irbesartan-based regimen for 9 months results in a strong BP reduction and is feasible as first-line combination therapy. Similar BP reductions were observed in the subgroup of patients with the metabolic syndrome. Compliance with treatment is particularly good, with >90% of patients continuing with treatment after 9 months.     

Antihypertensive efficacy of the calcium-antagonist felodipine in patients with persisting hypertension on beta-adrenoceptor blocker therapy. The Canadian Felodipine Study Group.

1. The antihypertensive efficacy of two different doses of the calcium antagonist felodipine was evaluated in patients with hypertension persisting despite beta-adrenoceptor blocker therapy. Following a single-blind placebo period of 4 weeks, patients were randomized to placebo (n = 36), felodipine 5 mg twice daily (n = 39) and felodipine 10 mg twice daily (n = 35) for another 4 weeks. beta-adrenoceptor blocker therapy remained unchanged throughout the study. 2. Effects on blood pressure (BP) were evaluated after the first dose and after chronic dosing at 2 h after dosing and the end of the dosing interval (12 h). 3. Felodipine decreased systolic and diastolic BP by 30-35/20-25 mm Hg at 2 h. These decreases were similar after acute and chronic treatment. Twelve hours after dosing, decreases of 15-20/10-15 mm Hg were observed compared to 10/5 mm Hg on placebo, and half of the patients still had a controlled BP (supine diastolic BP less than 90 mm Hg). BP responses were rather similar for both doses of felodipine at 2 and 12 h. 4. Multiple regression analysis showed that both initial BP level and plasma felodipine concentrations were significant predictors of the BP response to felodipine, but age was not. 5. Adverse effects attributed to felodipine were mainly related to vascular symptoms (primarily flushing and ankle swelling); these occurred in about 30% of patients, and were pronounced in three patients (4%). 6. Felodipine is therefore highly effective in lowering BP of hypertensive patients on chronic beta-adrenoceptor blocker therapy, with no evidence for a gradual lowering of the BP or for development of tolerance. Both initial BP level and plasma concentrations are better indicators of antihypertensive efficacy of this calcium antagonist than age.     

Use of calcium channel antagonists for the treatment of hypertension in the elderly

Systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure increase continuously throughout adult life and the prevalence of arterial hypertension rises accordingly, reaching 53-78% among those aged 65-74 years. Estimates of the prevalence of isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly range from 34-65%, with more women than men affected. It has been shown that within all age groups a difference in usual systolic blood pressure of 20 mm Hg or a difference in usual diastolic blood pressure of 10 mm Hg is associated with an approximately 2-fold difference in the risk of dying from stroke or ischaemic heart disease. Intervention trials using predominantly diuretics and/or beta-adrenoceptor antagonists have proven the efficacy and tolerability of antihypertensive treatment in elderly patients. For many years there have been ongoing discussions about the safety of calcium channel antagonists, especially in patients with diabetes mellitus. However, according to a recently published large prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trial with more than 33,000 patients enrolled, no indications for increased total mortality, cancer rate or gastrointestinal bleeding for participants on amlodipine, a long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist, were found. With calcium channel antagonists, protective effects against cardiovascular disease have been proven in large trials with elderly patients, particularly against stroke. There is good evidence to suggest that calcium channel antagonists may be superior to other antihypertensive agents in diabetic patients with isolated systolic hypertension. These agents are well tolerated and probably delay the progression of dementia. The lack of adverse metabolic effects that, in the case of a diuretic-based regimen, may have important long-term implications concerning cardiovascular risk, make calcium channel antagonists an attractive choice when antihypertensive treatment decisions need to be made in a predominantly overweight or obese elderly population.     

Evaluation of long-term efficacy and acceptability of indapamide SR in elderly hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term antihypertensive efficacy and acceptability of indapamide SR 1.5 mg in elderly hypertensive patients (> or = 65 years). STUDY DESIGN: Open, 12-month, follow-up study of 444 patients, treated with indapamide SR, who were responders and/or achieved target BP levels following a 3-month, randomised, controlled, double-blind short-term comparison of indapamide SR versus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg and amlodipine 5 mg. RESULTS: The long-term decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 12 months follow-up with indapamide SR was -24.0/-13.1 mmHg from baseline (M0). The percentage of patients that achieved target BP levels (DBP < 95 mmHg, SBP < or = 160 mmHg) was 80.1% [84.3% for isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) subgroup], and the response rate (BP < 140/90 mmHg or decrease in supine diastolic BP > or = 10 mmHg or in supine systolic BP > or = 20 mmHg) 81.5%. Blood pressure (BP) remained stable throughout the 12 months follow-up period (M3-M15), whatever the previous treatment received during the 3-month, doubleblind period (M0-M3). Clinical and biological acceptability was good. A low occurrence of withdrawals (7.2%), was reported. CONCLUSION: Over the course of the long-term, 12-month follow-up study, indapamide SR was shown to be an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive therapy, even after a switch from amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide, in patients aged 65 years-80 years with systolo-diastolic hypertension (SDH) or ISH.     

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of benidipine and its effects on cardiac structure and function in elderly Chinese patients with mild to moderate hypertension: an open-label, long-term study

Benidipine (CAS 91599-74-5) has been reported as an effective antihypertensive treatment and its cardioprotective effects have been shown in several basic and clinical studies. However, the long-term efficacy and safety of benidipine remain unknown in elderly Chinese patient with hypertension. In this prospective, multicenter, open-label clinical trial, 152 eligible patients aged 60 to 75 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension (sitting systolic blood pressure (BP) > or = 140 mmHg and/or sitting diastolic BP > or = 90 mmHg) entered a 52-week study. All patients initially received benidipine 2-4 mg once a day, followed by titration to benidipine 8 mg/day to achieve the target BP (< 140/90 mmHg in non-diabetics and <130/80 mmHg in diabetics). Add-on hydrochlorothiazide (CAS 58-93-5) and/or metoprolol tartaric acid (CAS 3750-58-6) were permitted during the study. Overall, 132 patients completed the 52-week treatment with benidipine as monotherapy or combination therapy. It showed that the regimen based on benidipine provided an obvious mean trough BP reduction of 13.8 +/- 12.4/8.3 +/- 9.2 mmHg (p < 0.001), and 62.5% of patients reached the target BP. In patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, the left ventricular mass index significantly decreased from 147.1 +/- 27.6 g/m2 at baseline to 136.0 +/- 17.5 g/m2 at 52 weeks (p = 0.036). Clinical adverse events (AEs) were found in 15.1% of all patients, and six patients discontinued the treatment due to drug-related AEs during the entire trial. Patients' compliance was an average of 98.7%. Benidipine, with a favorable tolerability profile, provides a long-term antihypertensive effect and potential benefit for the heart in elderly patients with mild to moderate hypertensive, suggesting that it is suitable for elderly patients with hypertension.     

Comparative evaluation of enalapril and hydrochlorothiazide in elderly patients with mild to moderate hypertension

Initial treatment of elderly hypertensive patients with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor is currently discouraged due to such patients' typical low-renin profile. To validate this principle, we studied 38 elderly males (aged greater than or equal to 65 years) with mild to moderate hypertension, comparing hemodynamic responses to and subjective impressions of enalapril or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). After gradual withdrawal of existing antihypertensive therapy and a four-week, single-blind placebo period, each patient was randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either enalapril 10-20 mg/d or HCTZ 12.5-25 mg/d for two to four weeks. Combination therapy with both agents was employed if either alone failed to reduce seated diastolic BP to less than or equal to 90 mm Hg. Equivalent proportions of patients receiving enalapril or HCTZ (8 of 19 and 10 of 19, respectively; p = ns) responded with significant reductions in systolic and diastolic BP in seated and standing positions. Combination therapy was most effective in patients receiving HCTZ prior to enalapril. In patients receiving enalapril before HCTZ, BP changes were minimal. No adverse effects were observed in the enalapril group but occurred in an equivalent fraction of patients in the other groups (4 of 10 HCTZ alone, 6 of 20 enalapril + HCTZ; p = ns). We conclude that enalapril may be considered a reasonable monotherapeutic antihypertensive agent in some elderly patients. Combination with HCTZ is beneficial in patients who fail to respond adequately to HCTZ alone.     

Renal protection and antihypertensive drugs: current status.

The renal protective effect of antihypertensive drugs is linked to 2 mechanisms. First, reduction in blood pressure (BP) is a fundamental prerequisite common to all antihypertensive drugs. The exact definition of the level to which BP should be reduced remains to be established, although there is some evidence that BP should be reduced below 130/85 mm Hg in patients with diabetic and nondiabetic nephropathies and below 125/75 mm Hg in patients with nondiabetic nephropathies and proteinuria >1 g/day. However, available data suggest that tight BP control (BP<140/80 mm Hg) can reduce the risk of cardiovascular complications in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; NIDDM). Secondly, intrarenal actions on mechanisms such as glomerular hypertension and hypertrophy, proteinuria, mesangial cell proliferation, mesangial matrix production and probably endothelial dysfunction, which can cause and/or worsen renal failure, are relevant for the renal protective action of some drug classes. ACE inhibitors possess such properties and also seem to lower proteinuria more than other antihypertensive drugs, despite a similar BP lowering effect. Calcium antagonists likewise exert beneficial intrarenal effects, but with some differences among subclasses. It remains to be evaluated whether angiotensin II-receptor antagonists can exert intrarenal effects and antiproteinuric actions similar to those of ACE inhibitors. While primary prevention of diabetic nephropathy is still an unsolved problem. there is convincing evidence that in patients with type 1 (insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; IDDM) or 2 diabetes mellitus and incipient nephropathy ACE inhibitors reduce urinary albumin excretion and slow the progression to overt nephropathy. Similar effects have been reported with some long-acting dihydropyridine calcium antagonists, although less consistently than with ACE inhibitors. In patients with diabetic overt nephropathy, ACE inhibitors and nondihydropyridine calcium antagonists are particularly effective in reducing proteinuria and both drugs can slow the decline in glomerular filtration rate more successfully than other antihypertensive treatment. Available data in patients with nondiabetic nephropathies indicate that ACE inhibitors can be beneficial, principally in patients with significant proteinuria, in slowing the progression of renal failure. However, it is still unclear whether this beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors is particularly evident in patients with mild and/or more advanced renal failure and whether calcium antagonists possess a similar nephroprotective effect. Overall, data from clinical trials thus seem to indicate that ACE inhibitors and possibly calcium antagonists should be preferred in the treatment of patients with diabetic and nondiabetic nephropathies. However, further information is needed to understand renal protection.     

Improving Care in Resistant Hypertension

OBJECTIVE: Resistant hypertension is an important clinical problem that is poorly studied and not well managed. The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with successful treatment of resistant hypertension in a specialty clinic. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study examining the medical records of patients seen at a specialty hypertension clinic at the University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA, in the year 2005. The records of 68 patients were reviewed. Those presenting with resistant hypertension (defined as BP > or =140/90mm Hg and receiving at least three antihypertensive medications, including a diuretic) were identified. Change in medication type and dosage, BP reduction, and percentage of patients at Joint National Committee (JNC)-7 goal were noted. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were included in the analysis. Mean age was 62.5 +/- 11.6 years, 54% were women, and mean presenting BP was 175.4 +/- 23.5/87.5 +/- 14.6mm Hg. After an average of 6.2 +/- 3.2 visits over a mean of 13.9 +/- 13.5 months, mean BP was reduced to 145.3 +/- 27.7/73.9 +/- 13.6mm Hg (paired t-test: p = 0.001 SBP, p = 0.0001 DBP), and 44.8% of the patients were at their JNC-7 goal. Change in the mean number of antihypertensive medications was not significantly different between the initial and final clinic visits (4.1 +/- 1.2 vs 4.2 +/- 1.0; p = 0.627). Combination pill use increased from four patients (14%) at initial visit to 19 (68%) at final visit. Numbers of patients treated with diuretics, beta-adrenoceptor antagonists, calcium channel antagonists (CCB), and minoxidil increased at the final clinic visit. Significant dose-related changes included the up-titration of CCBs to high doses, and the initiation of moderate doses of thiazide diuretics; mainly chlorthalidone (67% final visit vs 0% at initial visit). CONCLUSIONS: Patients referred to a specialty clinic for the control of resistant hypertension achieved significant reductions in BP with frequent visits, combination pills, and greater use and higher doses of CCBs and thiazide diuretics.     

Epidemiology of hypertension in the elderly.

Epidemiological studies confirm that hypertension, particularly systolic hypertension, is a major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk factor in the elderly. Clinical trials convincingly demonstrate the benefits of treating both diastolic hypertension in persons up to age 80 years, and isolated systolic hypertension in persons over age 60. The European Working Party on Hypertension in the Elderly (EWPHE) trial showed that reducing elevated blood pressure resulted in a 27% reduction in overall cardiovascular mortality, as well as significant reductions in severe congestive heart failure, strokes and deaths from myocardial infarction. The Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP) also reported a 36% reduction in the incidence of stroke and decreases in cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarctions, when hypertension was treated. Additional EWPHE data suggest that the optimal level of systolic blood pressure control is between 146 and 158mm Hg, while patients in the SHEP trial with isolated systolic hypertension derived benefits at an average treated systolic blood pressure of 143mm Hg. Elderly study populations comply well with antihypertensive treatment, and blood pressure can be safely lowered with simple drug regimens. Nonpharmacological treatment is recommended for initial treatment of mild diastolic hypertension and isolated systolic hypertension, and as adjuvant treatment with medication. Since all antihypertensive agents can lower blood pressure in the elderly, therapy should be chosen based on its potential for side effects, drug interactions and effects on concomitant disease states.     

Effect of a new calcium antagonist, tiapamil, in hypertension of the elderly.

The antihypertensive effect of a single oral dose of tiapamil (450 mg) and placebo were compared in a single blind randomized cross-over study in 10 71-86 year old hypertensive patients. Blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded every 15 min for 12 h by an automatic device. Tiapamil led to a decrease in mean daytime systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP from 171 +/- 12/98 +/- 10 mm Hg to 159 +/- 11/90 +/- 9 mm Hg (P less than 0.001) without significant variation in HR. Thereafter patients received tiapamil 450 twice daily; by the seventh day of treatment mean daytime SBP and DBP were 155 +/- 13/85 +/- 14 mm Hg (P less than 0.001 vs placebo). The hourly mean values of SBP recorded for 8/12 h (first tiapamil day) and 10/12 h (seventh tiapamil day) were significantly lower than the corresponding values after placebo. We conclude that tiapamil in the elderly exerts a sustained antihypertensive effect lasting 12 h or more, with only minor variations in HR. This effect predominates on systolic pressure and is significant from the first dose.     

Do we need drug therapy to manage mild hypertension in the elderly?

Mild hypertension (grade 1 or stage 1 hypertension) is defined as a systolic blood pressure of 140-159 mm Hg or a diastolic pressure of 90-99 mm Hg. According to current guidelines, patients with mild hypertension can be at low, medium, high or very high risk depending on the presence of other risk factors, target organ damage and associated cardiovascular or renal conditions. Guidelines recommend prompt initiation of antihypertensive treatment in patients at very high risk because of associated clinical conditions and this recommendation is strongly supported by the literature. Also patients at high risk must be treated without much delay, but it should be mentioned that the evidence is stronger for patients who are at high risk because of diabetes mellitus, than for patients at high risk because of left ventricular hypertrophy or the accumulation of >or = 3 other risk factors. Patients at low and medium risk should be followed up and given advice on nonpharmacological measures and treatment should only be initiated in cases of persistently elevated blood pressure. However, this advice is based on indirect evidence and is currently not supported by randomised controlled trials. A survey on treatment of hypertension and implementation of World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension (WHO/ISH) guidelines in primary care revealed that, respectively, only 20% and 33% of elderly men with mild hypertension at medium and high risk were treated with antihypertensive drugs and that this prevalence amounted to 67% in patients at very high risk; the prevalence was higher in patients with higher levels of blood pressure in each risk category.     

Effect of doxazosin gastrointestinal therapeutic system on patients with uncontrolled hypertension: the ASOCIA Study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate extended-release doxazosin gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) as add-on therapy in patients with treated, but uncontrolled hypertension. METHODS: A 16-week, open, noncomparative, multicenter, prospective study of patients with hypertension (> or = 140/> or = 90 mm Hg). Doxazosin GITS 4 mg/d was added to entry medication and increased to 8 mg/d at Week 4 in cases of inadequate blood pressure (BP) control. RESULTS: A total of 3631 patients (40% women) with mean age of 62.4 +/- 0.2 years were included. Proportion of patients reaching goal (< 140/< 90 mm Hg) after 4 weeks of add-on therapy with doxazosin GITS was 39% and increased to 61% at Week 16. Systolic and diastolic BP (mean +/- SEM) decreased, respectively, from 161.6 +/- 0.2 and 95.1 +/- 0.1 mm Hg at baseline to 142.2 +/- 0.2 and 84.1 +/- 0.1 mm Hg at Week 4 (P < 0.0001) and 136.8 +/- 0.2 and 80.6 +/- 0.2 mm Hg at Week 16 (P < 0.0001). Adverse events occurred in 108 patients (3.0%), with 57 (1.6%) related to the study treatment. In 17 patients (0.5%), serious adverse events were described, but only one was related to the study drug. CONCLUSIONS: Doxazosin GITS as add-on therapy achieved target blood pressure and was well tolerated in patients with hypertension uncontrolled by previous regimens. Doxazosin GITS efficacy and tolerability was achieved in combination with all classes of antihypertensives tested.     

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.     

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.