Efficacy of quadropril (spirapril) vs capropril in treatment of essential hypertension

AIM: To compare the efficacy of monotherapy with quadropril (spirapril) vs captopril in essential hypertension. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 20 female patients aged 55 +/- 2 years with moderate hypertension (WHO classification) were included in the study. 16 patients had congestive heart failure stage II NYHA and 4 patients stage III NYHA. ECG and echocardiography were performed in all the patients. Two patient groups of 10 patients were treated for 6 weeks. Group 1 received 6 mg quadropril once daily. Group 2 received 25 mg captopril 3 times daily. The therapy was considered to be efficient if diastolic pressure (BP) was reduced to 90 +/- 5 mm Hg and systolic BP to 140 +/- 10 mm Hg from baseline values in the range of 210/120-170/100 mm Hg. RESULTS: The hypotensive effect of quadropril resulted in stabilisation of BP during the second week of therapy. A significant BP decrease was achieved at the end of 6 week therapy. Systolic BP fell from 178.8 +/- 3.2 to 145 +/- 5.6 mm Hd and diastolic BP from 109.7 +/- 1.2 to 92.4 +/- 1.7 mm Hg. Central and cardiac hemodynamic parameters improved. In one patient the condition improved from CHF stage III to stage II NYHA. No adverse effects were observed. A hypotensive effect of captopril reduced significantly systolic blood pressure from 182.1 +/- 2.7 to 150 +/- 4.6 mm Hg and diastolic BP from 110.4 +/- 1.1 to 100.1 +/- 1.9 mm Hg. Two patients developed adverse effects: cough and chest dyscomfort. CONCLUSION: Quadropril monotherapy showed to be more effective in diastolic BP decrease compared with captopril monotherapy and had advantages in one daily dose regimen, absence of the first dose effect and side effects.     

Comparative study of spirapril (quadropril) and amlodipine efficacy. Results of randomized trial in patients with mild to moderate arterial hypertension

AIM: To compare in the non-blind randomised parallel study the efficiency of quadropril and amlodipine in the treatment of mild to moderate arterial hypertension. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 80 patients (57.6 +/- 1.0 years) were included in this study. The patients were randomised in two groups, 40 patients each. Patients of group 1 received monotherapy with quadropril, while those of group 2 were treated with amlodipine. The treatment duration was 8 weeks in both groups. Quadropril was given in a fixed dose of 6 mg once daily. The initial dose of amlodipine was 5 mg/day. In case of insufficient effect the dose was elevated to 10 mg/day. The efficacy was evaluated by changes in blood pressure (BP) measured at rest. Moreover, in 50 randomly chosen patients 24-h monitoring of BP was performed at the start and end of the treatment. RESULTS: In the quadropril group baseline systolic BP reached 158.6 +/- 2.1 mm Hg, diastolic BP--101.8 +/- 0.8 mm Hg, heart rate was 74.3 +/- 1.6 beats/min. In the amlodipine group baseline systolic BP was 159.9 +/- 2.4 mm Hg, diastolic BP--101.8 +/- 1.0 mm Hg, heart rate was 71.3 +/- 1.0 beats/min. Systolic BP decreased at the end of quadropril therapy to 138.5 +/- 2.2 mm Hg, diastolic BP to 88.1 +/- 1.4 mm Hg. No significant change of the heart rate was observed. Under 5 mg of amlodipine systolic BP decreased to 137.9 +/- 2.5 mm Hg and diastolic BP to 87.1 +/- 1.6 mm Hg. Heart rate increased to 73.3 +/- 2.2 beats/min. Under therapy with 10 mg amlodipine systolic BP decreased to 145.9 +/- 3.8 mm Hg, diastolic BP to 89.7 +/- 3.4 mm Hg. Heart rate increased to 77.3 +/- 4.0 beats/min (p < 0.01). The hypotensive effect of quadropril remained stable while the effect of amlodipine decreased by the 8th week of therapy (p < 0.01). Side effects were observed significantly more often in the amlodipine group, then in the quadropril group. The main quadropril side effect was cough. Side effects observed in the amlodipine group were edemas, tachycardia, weakness. CONCLUSION: Both quadropril and amlodipine demonstrated a comparable antihypertensive effect although in 11 of 40 patients in the amlodipine group a dose increase was necessary and tolerability of quadropril was better.     

Treatment of hypertension in the elderly

We have evaluated the effectiveness of antihypertensive therapy for predominant systolic hypertension in 55 patients, aged 61 to 76 years, with untreated systolic blood pressures of at least 160 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressures less than 100 mm Hg. In this retrospective analysis, 41 of the patients had been treated with the centrally acting agent guanabenz (average dose 24 +/- 14 [SD] mg daily) given alone, and 14 had received a combination of guanabenz (17 +/- 10 mg daily) and hydrochlorothiazide (60 +/- 30 mg daily). After six months of therapy, each regimen significantly decreased both systolic and diastolic blood pressures. Moreover, there were no differences between the two treatment regimens in their antihypertensive efficacy, and there was no evidence of orthostatic effects. In both treatment groups, approximately 50% of the patients had excellent therapeutic responses (decrease in supine systolic blood pressure of at least 20 mm Hg). The main side effects of treatment were drowsiness and dry mouth, though these tended to be mild and of short duration. Thus, in predominant systolic hypertension in elderly patients, guanabenz, either alone or in combination with a diuretic, appears to be an effective and well tolerated form of treatment.     

Combination Treatment with Sustained-Release Verapamil and Indapamide in the Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension

A multicenter study of the treatment of mild and moderate hypertension compared three once-daily regimens for efficacy and safety: Group I, verapamil sustained release (SR) 240 mg; Group II, verapamil SR 480 mg; and Group III, combination therapy of verapamil SR 240 mg plus indapamide 2.5 mg. After a 3-week placebo washout period and a 2-week preliminary treatment period with verapamil SR 240 mg daily, those patients with diastolic blood pressures of <95 mm Hg were excluded from further study; 137 remaining patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure of 95--115 mm Hg, representing "incomplete" responders to verapamil SR 240 mg, were randomized in a double-blind fashion to one of the three treatment groups for a duration of 16 weeks. Efficacy was assessed after 16 weeks of double-blind therapy or at end point. All three treatments significantly reduced sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressure from baseline levels. Compared with Group I (verapamil SR 240 mg daily), there was a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in Group II combination therapy of 8.6 mm Hg systolic and 3.0 mm Hg diastolic and a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in Group II (verapamil SR 480 mg daily) of 7.6 mm Hg systolic and 3.9 mm Hg diastolic BP. Patients who had the least change in blood pressure (diastolic blood pressure decreases of <5 mm Hg) to lead-in verapamil SR 240 mg daily, prior to randomization, tended to have a greater response to combination therapy than to verapamil SR 480 mg. Adverse experiences leading to withdrawal from the study occurred in 21% of patients receiving verapamil SR 480 mg daily (Group II). There was a significantly greater withdrawal from Group II than the other two treatment groups (8.5% from Group III and 4% from Group I). This trial demonstrated that adding indapamide 2.5 mg to the incomplete responders of verapamil SR 240 mg enhances efficacy and was well tolerated.     

Spirapril - a new long-acting ACE inhibitor: efficacy and safety in patients with arterial hypertension in combination with diabetes mellitus and impaired kidney function

AIM: To examine effectiveness and safety of quadropril. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Changes in blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), levels of glucose, potassium and creatinine, creatinine clearance were studied in 120 patients (48 males and 72 females, mean age 60.6 +/- 0.7 years) with mild to moderate arterial hypertension (AH) with average duration 13.8 +/- 0.7 years. The patients were divided into 3 groups: with AH (n = 40), AH + noninsulindependent diabetes mellitus (DM) (n = 43), AH and nephropathy (n = 37). 8-week treatment was performed with a standard dose of 6 mg/day (1 tablet of quadropril). Control examinations were made 2, 4 and 8 weeks after the treatment. RESULTS: After 8 weeks of treatment a decrease in systolic blood pressure in AH group was 24.0 +/- 3.0 mm Hg and in diastolic blood pressure 16.3 +/- 1.3 mm Hg (P < 0.001). In the group with DM this decrease was 22.4 +/- 2.8 mm Hg and 15.7 +/- 1.4 mm Hg (p < 0.001), respectively. In the group with nephropathy this decrease was 26.4 +/- 2.4 and 16.5 +/- 1.3 mm Hg (p < 0.001), respectively. Heart rate changed significantly only in diabetics: from 75.1 +/- 1.7 to 72.9 +/- 1.3 beats/min. Biochemical parameters in the hypertensive and diabetic patients did not change significantly. In the nephropathy group there was a significant decrease in creatinine and increase in creatinine clearance. Their level of glucose and potassium changed insignificantly. CONCLUSION: The treatment with quadropril results in a significant decrease in blood pressure, does not influence parameters of carbohydrate metabolism, improves nitrogen eliminating function of the kidneys.     

Increased efficacy and tolerability with losartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and therapy-related symptoms receiving two monotherapies

The efficacy and tolerability of losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg and enalapril 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg were compared in a double-blind, randomized trial in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled and experiencing side effects on prior therapy. Patients with moderate or severe hypertension, currently treated with at least two single-agent drugs (excluding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors), with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) above 90 mm Hg, and at least one undesirable drug-related symptom were randomized to once-daily treatment with one of the combinations for 12 weeks. Losartan/HCTZ lowered sitting DBP from the prior therapy baseline by 13.7 mm Hg and sitting systolic blood pressure 19.3 mm Hg; similar reductions occurred with enalapril/HCTZ. Trough sitting DBP was reduced to normal levels (< 90 mm Hg) in 63% of patients switched to the losartan combination and in 58% of those treated with the enalapril combination. Each combination was associated with improved tolerability compared with prior therapy, although fewer patients reported each of 24 undesirable symptoms after 12 weeks of losartan/HCTZ. The improvement from prior therapy in the occurrence of cough was significantly greater with losartan/HCTZ (P = .005). Enalapril/HCTZ, but not losartan/HCTZ, increased serum uric acid levels at week 12. In conclusion, the combination of losartan 100 mg/HCTZ 25 mg offers a beneficial therapeutic option for patients with a history of moderate to severe hypertension whose blood pressure is not adequately controlled or who exhibit side effects while on two or more single-agent antihypertensive drugs. In this population, the switch from prior antihypertensive therapies to once daily losartan 100 mg/HCTZ 25 mg improves blood pressure control and reduces side effects.     

Low-dose combination treatment for hypertension versus single-drug treatment-bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide versus amlodipine, enalapril, and placebo: combined analysis of comparative studies

To assess the efficacy and safety of 2.5, 5, and 10 mg bisoprolol/6. 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), 2.5, 5, and 10 mg amlodipine; and 5, 10, 20, and 40 mg enalapril in subjects (n = 541) with a sitting diastolic blood pressure of 95 to 114 mm Hg, data from two comparative studies were pooled. All drugs were titrated to a diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or less. Both studies were double-blind, randomized, parallel dose escalation trials with similar designs and included three active treatments. The second study also had a placebo group. The mean change from baseline of systolic and diastolic blood pressure for placebo (n = 79) was -0. 1/-2.2 mm Hg; amlodipine (n = 154), -12.4/-10.3 mm Hg; enalapril (n = 155), -9.4/-8.2 mm Hg; and bisoprolol/HCTZ (n = 155), -14.0/-12.0. Overall efficacy analyses documented a statistically significant decrease in sitting diastolic blood pressure for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ compared with placebo, amlodipine, and enalapril. There was a significant reduction in sitting systolic blood pressure for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ compared with placebo and enalapril but not amlodipine. Also, there was a significant decrease in sitting heart rate for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ (-6.2 beats/min) compared with placebo (+0.1 beats/min), amlodipine (+1.2 beats/min), and enalapril (+0.5 beats/min). The control rate (diastolic blood pressure < or = 90 mm Hg) for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ (66.5%) was significantly better than for placebo (21.8%) and enalapril (47.1%) but not amlodipine (58.4%). Of those patients achieving and maintaining control, 49% of the bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ subjects were on the lowest two doses compared with 30% of the amlodipine and 26% of the enalapril subjects. Percentages of patients reporting at least one drug-related adverse event through week 12 were 27%, 24%, 28%, and 25% for placebo, bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ, amlodipine, and enalapril (not significant). Lower doses of two drugs in fixed combination can provide as good or better blood pressure control compared with higher doses of a single drug with similar tolerability and safety.     

Efficacy of low-dose captopril given twice daily to patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled by a beta blocker plus thiazide diuretic

Thirty-two patients with moderate to severe essential hypertension whose supine diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) was greater than or equal to 95 mm Hg following 2 weeks' treatment with the optimal dosage of beta blocker-diuretic combination were randomly assigned to the addition of either captopril 25 mg or 50 mg b.i.d. After 6 weeks' treatment, if patients were not normalized (SDBP less than 95 mm Hg), the dose of captopril was doubled for a further 6 weeks. The addition of captopril led to a significant fall in standing and supine diastolic and systolic blood pressure at the end of the sixth and twelfth week of treatment. There was no difference in the change in blood pressure between the two groups. At the end of the study SDBP was normalized in 66% of patients and a further 12.5% had their SDBP reduced by greater than 10%. Captopril 25 or 50 mg administered twice daily proved to be a very effective antihypertensive agent when added to a beta blocker-diuretic combination in patients resistant to optimal doses of these drugs.     

Medically supervised water-only fasting in the treatment of hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension-related diseases are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in industrially developed societies. Although antihypertensive drugs are extensively used, dietary and lifestyle modifications also are effective in the treatment of patients with hypertension. One such lifestyle intervention is the use of medically supervised, water-only fasting as a safe and effective means of normalizing blood pressure and initiating health-promoting behavioral changes. METHODS: One hundred seventy-four consecutive hypertensive patients with blood pressure in excess of 140 mm Hg systolic, 90 mm Hg diastolic (140/90 mm Hg), or both were treated in an inpatient setting under medical supervision. The treatment program consisted of a short prefasting period (approximately 2 to 3 days on average) during which food consumption was limited to fruits and vegetables, followed by medically supervised water-only fasting (approximately 10 to 11 days on average) and a refeeding period (approximately 6 to 7 days on average) introducing a low-fat, low-sodium, vegan diet. RESULTS: Almost 90% of the subjects achieved blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg by the end of the treatment program. The average reduction in blood pressure was 37/13 mm Hg, with the greatest decrease being observed for subjects with the most severe hypertension. Patients with stage 3 hypertension (those with systolic blood pressure greater than 180 mg Hg, diastolic blood pressure greater than 110 mg Hg, or both) had an average reduction of 60/17 mm Hg at the conclusion of treatment. All of the subjects who were taking antihypertensive medication at entry (6.3% of the total sample) successfully discontinued the use of medication. CONCLUSION: Medically supervised water-only fasting appears to be a safe and effective means of normalizing blood pressure and may assist in motivating health-promoting diet and lifestyle changes.     

Efficacy of valsartan in patients aged > or =65 years with systolic hypertension

OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter trial investigated the effects of valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, on systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients aged > or =65 years with systolic hypertension, with or without diastolic hypertension. BACKGROUND: Hypertension in older persons is a public health problem of epidemic proportions. SBP, which increases with age, is a better predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and all-cause mortality than is diastolic blood pressure (DBP). SBP is now thought to be a major modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: The study population consisted of 146 outpatients (74 female and 72 male) with a mean (+/- SD) age of 73.0+/-6.7 years and a trough mean sitting SBP > or =160 mm Hg; 88.4% were white. Patients with clinically relevant cardiac valvular disease, documented or suspected renal artery stenosis, and a serum creatinine level >2.5 mg/dL were excluded from the study. After a 2- to 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive valsartan 80 mg or placebo once daily for 4 weeks and were then force-titrated to valsartan 160 mg or matching placebo once daily for an additional 4 weeks. Median DBP was 90 mm Hg, and >50% of the patients had isolated systolic hypertension. RESULTS: For the primary efficacy variable, the change from baseline to end point in trough mean sitting SBP, treatment with valsartan was superior to placebo, with reductions of 19.2 mm Hg compared with 8.8 mm Hg, respectively (P < 0.001, 95% CI -15.7, -5.5). Valsartan also produced superior reductions in trough mean sitting DBP (5.2 mm Hg and 1.2 mm Hg for valsartan and placebo, respectively; P < 0.001, 95% CI -6.4, -2.3). The tolerability of valsartan was comparable to that of placebo, with adverse events occurring in 31 (42.5%) valsartan-treated patients compared with 28 (38.4%) patients who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this patient population of hypertensive patients aged > or =65 years, valsartan was effective and well tolerated and offers a promising new approach to the treatment of systolic hypertension.     

Antihypertensive activity of isradipine in humans: a new dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist

Isradipine (Sandoz PN 200-110), a new dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist, was evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial for antihypertensive efficacy in 24 patients with essential hypertension. Two groups were studied: one received placebo throughout the entire study (n = 12) and the other received isradipine (n = 12), 2.5 mg b.i.d., for the first week, 5 mg b.i.d. the second week, and 10 mg b.i.d. the third week after an initial 3-week baseline placebo period. Blood pressure was measured approximately 3 hours after dosing. Isradipine, at a total daily dose of 10 mg, lowered average supine diastolic blood pressure 11.8 mm Hg, with only a 3.5 mm Hg decrease in systolic blood pressure compared with baseline. At a total daily dose of 20 mg, average supine diastolic blood pressure decreased 14.8 mm Hg and supine systolic blood pressure declined 13.9 mm Hg; both were significantly decreased compared with placebo or baseline. Heart rate was increased only minimally by isradipine. Renin level activity was increased slightly by isradipine. No serious adverse clinical or laboratory experiences were noted. Isradipine appears to be effective in lowering blood pressure without reflex tachycardia.     

Once-daily fixed-combination irbesartan 300 mg/ hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg and circadian blood pressure profile in patients with essential hypertension

BACKGROUND: More than 60% of patients with hypertension included in morbidity and mortality trials needed >or=2 drugs to achieve a substantial, sustained reduction in blood pressure. Tolerable combinations using higher doses of antihypertensive drugs are frequently required to control blood pressure. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the effect of a once-daily fixed combination of irbesartan 300 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg on the circadian blood pressure profile in patients with essential hypertension that was not controlled with full-dose single therapy or low-dose combined therapy. METHODS: Study patients were recruited consecutively from the outpatient hypertension clinics of 3 university hospitals in Spain. After a 1-week washout period, patients with a mean daytime blood pressure >135/85 mm Hg were treated with irbesartan 300 mg/HCTZ 25 mg once daily for 12 weeks. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed at the end of the washout period and during the last week of treatment. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients with essential hypertension (28 men, 29 women) were enrolled; their mean (SD) age was 60.4 (7.2) years (range, 45-78 years). After treatment, a significant reduction in both clinic and ambulatory mean (SD) blood pressure values was observed in the whole group of 57 patients (from 146.0 [11.0] mm Hg to 123.3 [13.3] mm Hg, P < 0.001 for 24-hour systolic blood pressure [SBP]; from 89.9 [8.2] mm Hg to 76.5 [9.4] mm Hg, P < 0.001 for 24-hour diastolic blood pressure [DBP]. The mean lowering of ambulatory SBP and DBP at peak was 25.2 (14.5) mm Hg and 14.7 (9.5) mm Hg, respectively, and at trough, 22.3 (18.3) mm Hg and 12.3 (10.9) mm Hg. The trough-to-peak ratio of the group was 0.92 for SBP (0.97 in responders) and 0.84 for DBP (0.89 in responders). The smoothness index, calculated as the mean of all individual values, was 1.7 (1.0) for SBP (1.8 [0.9] in responders) and 1.3 (0.8) for DBP (1.5 [0.6] in responders). Seven side effects in 6 patients were reported. No metabolic changes were observed, and no patient discontinued the study because of treatment-related adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed combination of irbesartan 300 mg/HCTZ 25 administered once daily produced a crude meaningful effect in reducing 24-hour blood pressure and was well tolerated. The circadian profile was preserved, as shown by trough-to-peak ratios and smoothness index values for both SBP and DBP.     

Comparison of the effectiveness of a beta blocker (atenolol) and a diuretic (chlorthalidone) in black hypertensive patients

A double-blind crossover trial of atenolol and chlorthalidone was done in black Jamaican hypertensive patients. After an initial four weeks of single drug therapy, the beta blocker and thiazide diuretic were used in combination. Chlorthalidone at a daily dose of 25 mg produced a significant (P less than .05) fall in the mean systolic and diastolic pressures (19.4 mm Hg and 12.2 mm Hg, respectively); atenolol produced a significant fall in the diastolic blood pressure (6.5 mm Hg); and combination therapy produced a reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressures (27.8 mm Hg and 17.8 mm Hg, respectively). The study showed that combination therapy using a low dose of thiazide diuretic and a beta blocker was synergetic, but that a thiazide was more effective than a beta blocker in lowering the blood pressure in black hypertensive patients.     

Usefulness of moexipril and hydrochlorothiazide in moderately severe essential hypertension.

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor moexipril alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide versus hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy in patients with stage II and III essential hypertension. This was a double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial that evaluated moexipril (15 and 30 mg once daily), hydrochlorothiazide (25 and 50 mg once daily), and combinations of the drugs (15 mg moexipril/25 mg hydrochlorothiazide and 30 mg moexipril/50 mg hydrochlorothiazide) in 272 hypertensive patients whose seated diastolic blood pressure (BP) was 100 to 114 mm Hg. The primary efficacy variable was the mean change from baseline in seated diastolic BP at the end of the dosing period. Secondary efficacy measures included changes in systolic BP and standing BP. The lower doses of moexipril and hydrochlorothiazide reduced diastolic BP similarly (-8.0 +/- 1.4 versus -8.1 +/- 1.4 mm Hg; p = NS) as did higher doses of the monotherapeutic regimens (moexipril, -9.7 +/- 1.2 mm Hg versus hydrochlorothiazide, -11.0 +/- 1.2 mm Hg, p = NS). Combinations of moexipril and hydrochlorothiazide reduced diastolic BP significantly more than either monotherapy (lower doses, -16.0 +/- 1.4 mm Hg; p < 0.001; higher doses, -17.9 +/- 1.2 mm Hg; p < 0.001). Similar trends were observed for the systolic BP. Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were 0% for the moexipril monotherapy patients and 3% to 5% in patients on diuretic or combination treatment. These data demonstrate that 15 and 30 mg moexipril once daily lower BP similarly to hydrochlorothiazide in patients with stage II and III hypertension. There is also an additive effect when combining the two agents that lowers BP more significantly than either monotherapy.     

Assessment of the antihypertensive efficacy of various doses of delapril by office and ambulatory blood pressure measurement: The DEFIND study

This study was undertaken to compare and verify the antihypertensive effects of various delapril doses versus placebo on office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP). After a 2-wk placebo period, 303 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were randomized in a double-blind study to 8 wk of treatment with placebo, or delapril 7.5 mg twice daily, delapril 15 mg twice daily, delapril 30 mg twice daily, or delapril 30 mg once daily. BP changes versus baseline and rates of normalized office systolic blood pressure (SBP) > 140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > 90 mm Hg, as well as responder office SBP > 140 mm Hg or reduction ≥20 mm Hg and office DBP > 90 mm Hg or reduction ≥10 mm Hg, were calculated. In the intention-to-treat population (n=296), office SBP and DBP reductions were more notable with 30 mg twice daily (15.6/11.5 mm Hg) and 15 mg twice daily (14.8/12.5 mm Hg) than with other delapril regimens (30 mg once daily: 11.8/10.5 mm Hg; 7.5 mg twice daily: 12.9/10.1 mm Hg) and placebo (P< .05 for DBP;P< .01 for SBP). The same was true for frequency of responders (63.8% and 60.3%; P≤.05 vs placebo) and normalized patients (58.6% and 53.4%;P< .05 vs placebo). Analysis of ambulatory BPs confirmed the accuracy of office BPs. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 3.4% to 6.7% of patients given delapril and in 6.5% of those given placebo. The lowest effective dose of delapril, 15 mg twice daily, may be recommended as the initial dose for patients who begin treatment with this agent.     

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan in patients aged > or = 65 years with mild to moderate hypertension

BACKGROUND: Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is the preferred mechanism of action for controlling hypertension in select groups of patients, including those with diabetic nephropathy and heart failure. Currently, 2 classes of drugs work by blocking the RAAS, albeit by differing mechanisms: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II angiotensin type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs). OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the comparative efficacy and tolerability of the ARB irbesartan and the ACE inhibitor enalapril in patients > or = 65 years of age with mild to moderate hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP], 95 to 110 mm Hg). METHODS: Elderly (> or = 65 years of age) patients were recruited from 26 Canadian study centers for a randomized, double-blind, 8-week clinical trial. Exclusion criteria included sitting DBP >110 mm Hg or sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) >200 mm Hg, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, cardiac procedure, stroke, or transient ischemic attack within 6 months of randomization, as well as other preexisting or present severe medical or psychologic conditions. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single daily dose of irbesartan 150 mg (n = 70) or enalapril 10 mg (n = 71) with treatment doses of study drugs doubled at week 4 for sitting DBP > or = 90 mm Hg. Reductions from baseline blood pressure measurements at trough (24 +/- 3 hours after the last dose of medication) were assessed for sitting DBP and sitting SBP. Comparative tolerability to study drugs was also assessed. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated similar reductions at week 8 in both DBP and SBP for both groups. For the primary efficacy analysis of sitting DBP, there was a mean reduction from baseline of 9.6 mm Hg and 9.8 mm Hg for the irbesartan and enalapril groups, respectively (P = 0.93). The mean reduction from baseline in sitting SBP was 10.1 mm Hg and 11.6 mm Hg for the irbesartan and enalapril groups, respectively (P = 0.54). Normalization rates (sitting DBP <90 mm Hg) at week 8 did not differ between groups (52.9% in the irbesartan group and 54.9% in the enalapril group; P = 0.81). No statistical difference existed between the 2 groups with respect to serious adverse events or discontinuations due to adverse events. Irbesartan was associated with a significantly lower incidence of cough than was enalapril (4.3% vs 15.5%, respectively; P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Irbesartan is an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive for elderly patients with mild to moderate hypertension. This study establishes that irbesartan has better tolerability than enalapril with respect to cough and suggests that irbesartan is as effective at lowering blood pressure but better tolerated than an ACE inhibitor in hypertensive patients > or = 65 years of age.     

Labetalol infusion in hypertensive emergencies

The antihypertensive effects of labetalol infusion (2 mg/min; maximal dose 150 mg) were evaluated in 22 subjects requiring rapid lowering of blood pressure because of severe hypertension, a hypertensive crisis after surgery, or before angiographic examination. Overall systolic and diastolic blood pressures were reduced from 201 +/- 4 to 164 +/- 4 mm Hg and from 123 +/- 3 to 107 +/- 3 mm Hg, respectively. By the end of the infusion, diastolic blood pressure in 16 (73%) subjects was lowered to less than or equal to 110 mm Hg. No adverse effects were encountered, but one subject had a transitory hypotensive episode that did not require treatment. Intravenous labetalol appears effective and well tolerated in the control of blood pressure in hypertensive emergencies.     

Clinical efficacy and tolerability of olmesartan

Background: Olmesartan medoxomil is an angiotensin II receptor antagonist that selectively and competitively inhibits the angiotensin 11 type 1 receptor.Objective: This article reviews the results of some key studies that assessed the efficacy and tolerability of olmesartan in patients with hypertension.Methods: Olmesartan has been investigated in several clinical studies. This article reports on data from 1 such study with a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-finding design in patients with mild to moderate hypertension (baseline mean sitting diastolic blood pressure, 100–114 mm Hg). The results from a meta-analysis of 7 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are also presented.Results: In the dose-finding study, 792 patients were randomized to olmesartan (2.5–80 mg) or placebo once daily, and changes were recorded in trough mean sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressures from baseline to the end of a 12-week treatment period. For the meta-analysis, 3055 patients were randomized to treatment; 2511 received olmesartan. In the dose-finding study as well as in the meta-analysis, olmesartan (2.5–80 mg once daily) produced a dose-dependent decrease in diastolic and systolic blood pressures, and at a dose of 10 to 80 mg showed significant superiority in reducing diastolic blood pressure over placebo (P < 0.05). The 20-mg dose was considered optimal, with a responder rate of 70%. Furthermore, in a 2-year study with 462 patients, olmesartan had a good safety profile and was well tolerated. The results of the clinical studies in >3000 patients receiving olmesartan showed that the frequency and profile of adverse events with olmesartan were generally similar to those with placebo; the frequency of adverse events was not dose related. Olmesartan, with or without hydrochlorothiazide, was well tolerated over 2 years of treatment.     

The efficacy and tolerability of barnidipine hydrochloride in Thai patients with hypertension

This open-label, blinded study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of barnidipine at a titrated dose of 10-15 mg once daily for 8 weeks in the treatment of essential hypertension in 40 Thai patients. 'Office' blood pressure (BP) and 24-h ambulatory BP measurements were recorded. A systolic BP/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) reduction of 18.0 +/- 13.6/9.1 +/- 6.6 mmHg was obtained. The full response rate among patients with systolic and diastolic hypertension was 63% using either SBP or DBP criteria, and 54% using both SBP and DBP criteria. One of the two patients with isolated systolic hypertension had a full response, and the BP in two of the three patients with isolated diastolic hypertension was normalized. The trough-to-peak ratio and smoothness index for SBP/DBP were acceptable (0.76 +/- 0.63/0.55 +/- 0.26 and 1.2 +/- 0.4/1.2 +/- 0.3, respectively). In conclusion, once-daily barnidipine monotherapy provides effective 24-h BP control and is generally well tolerated in ambulatory patients.     

Safety and Efficacy of Once-Daily Captopril Plus Hydrochlorothiazide versus Nifedipine Gastrointestinal Therapeutic System in Black Patients with Mild to Moderate Hypertension

The safety and efficacy of captopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) were compared to nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) in 145 randomly assigned black patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Following a 4-week placebo lead-in, patients received captopril plus HCTZ 25/15 mg or nifedipine GITS 30 mg for up to 12 weeks. Upward dose titration was permitted at weeks 3 and 6. Mean seated systolic and diastolic blood pressures decreased 16.1 ± 13.5 mm Hg and 11.5 ± 7.4 mm Hg, respectively, with captopril plus HCTZ. Statistically similar decreases were observed with nifedipine GITS: systolic, 19.3 ± 12.2 mm Hg; diastolic, 13.8 ± 7.2 mm Hg. There were no clinically significant between-group differences in serum chemistries. Edema was reported in 20.3% of nifedipine GITS patients versus 1.4% of captopril plus HCTZ patients (p = 0.001). The two regimens were equally effective in controlling blood pressure in black patients; however, a higher incidence of edema occurred with nifedipine GITS compared to captopril plus HCTZ.