A double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-response study of the effectiveness and safety of lisinopril for children with hypertension

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use in hypertensive children, the safety and effectiveness of lisinopril had not been previously tested in a controlled study. METHODS: This study explored the dose-response relationship and safety of lisinopril in 115 hypertensive children, aged 6 to 16 years. Patients were randomized in a double-blind fashion for 2 weeks to one of three doses by body weight at baseline: <50 kg: low (0.625 mg), middle (2.5 mg), high (20 mg), and > or =50 kg: low (1.25 mg), middle (5 mg), high (40 mg). The dose-response for lisinopril was evaluated by analyzing the change in slope in sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressure (BP) by dose after 2 weeks of therapy compared to baseline. Patients then entered a double-blind withdrawal, where patients were either switched to placebo or continued their current lisinopril treatment for up to 2 weeks. Patients completed period II when their BP returned to baseline. Antihypertensive effectiveness, between placebo and lisinopril was determined for all doses. Adverse events were carefully monitored. RESULTS: There was a dose-response relationship between the lowest and each of the higher doses of lisinopril. Blood pressure in the placebo group increased after withdrawal of lisinopril. The dose-response relationship was consistent across all subgroups (ie, age, Tanner stage, ethnicity, gender). CONCLUSIONS: Lisinopril, once daily, is an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive in children aged 6 to 16 years. An initial dose of 0.07 mg/kg, administered once daily, effectively lowered BP within 2 weeks. Blood pressure was reduced in a dose-dependent fashion.     

Lisinopril versus enalapril: evaluation of trough:peak ratio by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

In 34 out-patients with essential hypertension, the antihypertensive effect and the trough-to-peak ratios of once-daily enalapril or lisinopril were compared by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) according to a crossover design. The drug dose was titrated and a thiazide diuretic was added if necessary to attain a target office BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg. Both drugs significantly lowered BP but the effect of lisinopril was greater (P < 0.009): day- and night-time mean BP fell from 152/98 and 135/84 mm Hg, respectively to 133/85 and 118/74 mm Hg with enalapril and to 129/83 and 116/70 mm Hg with lisinopril. BP goal was reached with an average dose of 18 mg enalapril with 8 mg hydrochlorothiazide and with 17 mg lisinopril combined with 6 mg diuretic. Trough:peak ratio values, which were calculated after Fourier analysis of ABPM data in individual patients, were independent of drug dose. The combination with the diuretic resulted in slightly higher trough:peak ratios than with ACE inhibitor monotherapy, but the difference was not significant. The median trough:peak ratio in patients when using enalapril-based therapy was 0.48 and, when taking lisinopril-based treatment, it was 0.65 (n = 28, P < 0.005). A significant correlation was found between trough:peak ratio and changes in daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP; Spearman r= 0.43) and night-time MAP (r= 0.66). When 24-h ABPM was performed starting 24 h after last drug intake, both ACE inhibitors still had a significant antihypertensive effect (P < 0.001), which was similar for both drugs. Eleven patients reported minor side effects. Four patients stopped ACE-inhibitor treatment because of cough. The data show that lisinopril has a longer duration of action than enalapril.     

Lisinopril for the treatment of hypertension within the first 24 hours of acute ischemic stroke and follow-up

BACKGROUND: Hypertension immediately after acute ischemic stroke is associated with impaired morbidity and mortality, although there are few data on antihypertensive use immediately after ictus. This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study explored the hemodynamic effect and safety of oral lisinopril initiated within 24 h after an ictus. METHODS: Forty hypertensive (systolic blood pressure [BP] >/=140 or diastolic BP >/=90 mm Hg) acute ischemic stroke patients (14 lacunar, 13 partial anterior, 7 total anterior, 6 posterior circulation infarct) were randomized to 5 mg of oral lisinopril (n = 18) or matching placebo (n = 22). Dose was increased to 10 mg (or 2 x placebo) on day 7 if casual systolic BP was >/=140 mm Hg and continued to day 14. After the initial dose, automated BP levels were monitored for 16 h. The BP levels and stroke outcome measures were assessed at day 14, and all patients were followed to day 90. RESULTS: At h 4 after the first dose, systolic/diastolic BP change was -20 +/- 21/-6 +/- 10 mm Hg (mean +/- SE) in the lisinopril group and 1 +/- 11/0 +/- 8 mmHg in the placebo group (group differences: systolic BP, P < .05; diastolic BP, P = .07). With a daily dosing regime, systolic BP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), diastolic BP, and pulse pressure (PP) were significantly lower in the lisinopril group compared to the placebo group at day 14 (P < .01). Neurologic and functional measures were similar between groups at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Lisinopril, even at small dosages, is well tolerated and an effective hypotensive agent after acute ischemic stroke, gradually reducing BP by 4 h after oral first-dose administration. Oral lisinopril is now being studied in a larger outcome-based trial in acute hypertensive stroke patients.     

Valsartan: Long Term Efficacy and Tolerability Compared to Lisinopril in Elderly Patients with Essential Hypertension

A total of 501 elderly patients with essential hypertension were randomized to receive valsartan or lisinopril in this one year multi-center, double-blind, parallel group trial. Patients received valsartan 40 mg (n=334) or lisinopril 2.5 mg (n=167) daily for 2 weeks with subsequent titration (alone or in combination with hydroclorothiazide), depending on response to treatment. The primary efficacy variable was the percentage of patients with a response, defined as sitting diastolic blood pressure <90 mmHg or drop of ≥10 mmHg from baseline.

A high percentage of patients responded to treatment in both valsartan and lisinopril groups: 80% for both groups at 12 weeks and 81% and 87%, respectively, at 52 weeks with no statistically significant difference between treatments (12 weeks, p= 0.925; 52 weeks, p= 0.148).     

Effect of combining extended-release carvedilol and lisinopril in hypertension: results of the COSMOS study

Hypertension treatment commonly requires multiple agents to achieve target blood pressure (BP). β-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are commonly co-prescribed in clinical practice although few data are available that test their additivity on BP lowering. The efficacy and safety of once-daily extended-release carvedilol (carvedilol CR) combined with the ACEI lisinopril in a double-blind, randomized, factorial design study were studied. Patients (N=656) with stage 1 or 2 hypertension were randomized evenly to 1 of 15 groups for 6 weeks: carvedilol CR monotherapy 20 mg, 40 mg, or 80 mg/d; lisinopril monotherapy 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg/d; or 1 of 9 combinations of carvedilol CR plus lisinopril initiated simultaneously. Primary efficacy measures (assessed by ambulatory BP monitoring [ABPM]) were change from baseline in 24-hour mean diastolic BP (DBP) and in trough (20-24 hours) DBP. Continuous efficacy variables were assessed using analysis of covariance. Whether any combination dose was superior to its monotherapy components was assessed using the Hung AVE procedure. Despite the presence of additional BP lowering observed with most of the combinations compared with their monotherapy components, the Hung AVE test was not significant for either primary efficacy measures. Post hoc analyses of the high-dose combination groups (carvedilol CR/lisinopril regimens of 80/10 mg, 80/20 mg, 80/40 mg, 20/40 mg, and 40/40 mg) showed a significant treatment difference compared with both carvedilol CR 80 mg and lisinopril 40 mg for 24-hour mean DBP but not for trough DBP. With the exception of dizziness, individual adverse events did not increase with ascending doses or combinations. The superiority of initiating combination treatment with carvedilol CR and lisinopril compared with the monotherapy components was not demonstrated with the ABPM measurements. Nonetheless, the post hoc assessment combining all high-dose groups did produce significant 24-hour mean BP reduction when compared with the high-dose monotherapy groups. The tolerability profile of initiating combination therapy was generally comparable to the initiation of treatment with monotherapy.     

Pulse pressure lowering effect of dual blockade with candesartan and lisinopril vs. high-dose ACE inhibition in hypertensive type 2 diabetic subjects: a CALM II study post-hoc analysis

BACKGROUND: Elevated pulse pressure (PP) is strongly associated with micro- and macrovascular complications in type 2 diabetic patients. We examined the effect of 12 months of dual blockade with candesartan and lisinopril vs. high-dose lisinopril monotherapy on ambulatory PP in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients from the CALM (Candesartan and Lisinopril Microalbuminuria Trial) II study. METHODS: The CALM II study was a 12-month prospective, randomized, parallel-group, double-masked study that included 75 type 1 and type 2 diabetic subjects with hypertension. Participants were randomized for treatment with either high-dose lisinopril (40 mg once daily (o.d.)) or for dual blockade treatment with candesartan (16 mg o.d.) and lisinopril (20 mg o.d.). In this article, we present data from the post-hoc subgroup of 51 type 2 diabetic subjects who completed the full 12-month study period with successful ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements at both baseline and follow-up visits. RESULTS: Baseline 24-h BP values were similar in the two groups (24-h systolic BP (SBP) 130 +/- 12 vs. 127 +/- 9, 24-h diastolic BP (DBP) 77 +/- 8 vs. 74 +/- 7, and 24-h PP 53 +/- 8 vs. 53 +/- 7 mm Hg, for the lisinopril and dual blockade groups, respectively, P > 0.2 for all). Compared with lisinopril monotherapy, dual blockade treatment caused a highly significant reduction in 24-h PP levels (-5 +/- 5 mm Hg, P = 0.003), albeit the difference in the BP lowering effect between the treatment groups did not differ significantly for 24-h systolic (P = 0.21) or diastolic (P = 0.49) BP. Dual blockade treatment significantly lowered 24-h SBP (-5 +/- 11 mm Hg, P = 0.03), but not 24-h DBP (-2 +/- 7 mm Hg, P = 0.29), whereas in the lisinopril group, the opposite effect was observed (24-h SBP -1 +/- 9 mm Hg, P = 0.45, 24-h SBP -3 +/- 7 mm Hg, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Twelve months of dual blockade with candesartan and lisinopril significantly reduced PP when compared with high-dose monotherapy with lisinopril. Larger studies are needed to confirm this observation, and to evaluate whether this effect translates into a greater degree of end-organ protection from dual blockade treatment than from conventional angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition.     

Safety and efficacy of the oral direct renin inhibitor aliskiren in elderly patients with hypertension

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of aliskiren in elderly patients (> or =65 years old) with essential hypertension. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicenter study, 355 elderly patients with hypertension [office mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) > or =145-<180 mmHg and mean 24-h ambulatory systolic BP (ASBP) > or =135 mmHg] were randomized to once-daily treatment for 8 weeks with aliskiren 75 mg (n = 91), 150 mg (n = 84), 300 mg (n = 94) or the comparator lisinopril 10 mg (n = 86). The primary efficacy variable was change in mean 24-h ASBP. RESULTS: At endpoint, aliskiren 75 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg and lisinopril 10 mg lowered mean 24-h ASBP (least-squares mean+/-SEM) by 8.4+/-0.8, 7.1+/-0.8, 8.7+/-0.8 and 10.2+/-0.9 mmHg, and mean 24-h ambulatory diastolic BP by 4.5+/-0.5, 3.6+/-0.5, 3.9+/-0.5 and 6.3+/-0.5 mmHg, respectively, with no significant difference between aliskiren doses. The trough-to-peak ratio for ASBP reduction with aliskiren 75 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg and lisinopril 10 mg was 0.77, 0.64, 0.79 and 0.87, respectively. All treatments lowered office msSBP and mean sitting diastolic BP (msDBP) compared with baseline. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving aliskiren 300 mg achieved BP control (msSBP/msDBP <140/90 mmHg) compared with those receiving aliskiren 75 mg (36.2% vs 24.2%, p = 0.033). There was no evidence of dose-related increases in the rate of adverse events with aliskiren treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Aliskiren, a novel direct renin inhibitor, provides effective 24-h BP lowering with no evidence of dose-related increases in the incidence of adverse events in elderly patients with hypertension.     

A comparison of the tolerability of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren and lisinopril in patients with severe hypertension

Patients with severe hypertension (>180/110 mm Hg) require large blood pressure (BP) reductions to reach recommended treatment goals (<140/90 mm Hg) and usually require combination therapy to do so. This 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the tolerability and antihypertensive efficacy of the novel direct renin inhibitor aliskiren with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril in patients with severe hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP)>or=105 mm Hg and <120 mm Hg). In all, 183 patients were randomized (2:1) to aliskiren 150 mg (n=125) or lisinopril 20 mg (n=58) with dose titration (to aliskiren 300 mg or lisinopril 40 mg) and subsequent addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) if additional BP control was required. Aliskiren-based treatment (ALI) was similar to lisinopril-based treatment (LIS) with respect to the proportion of patients reporting an adverse event (AE; ALI 32.8%; LIS 29.3%) or discontinuing treatment due to AEs (ALI 3.2%; LIS 3.4%). The most frequently reported AEs in both groups were headache, nasopharyngitis and dizziness. At end point, ALI showed similar mean reductions from baseline to LIS in msDBP (ALI -18.5 mm Hg vs LIS -20.1 mm Hg; mean treatment difference 1.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.0, 4.4)) and mean sitting systolic blood pressure (ALI -20.0 mm Hg vs LIS -22.3 mm Hg; mean treatment difference 2.8 mm Hg (95% CI -1.7, 7.4)). Responder rates (msDBP<90 mm Hg and/or reduction from baseline>or=10 mm Hg) were 81.5% with ALI and 87.9% with LIS. Approximately half of patients required the addition of HCTZ to achieve BP control (ALI 53.6%; LIS 44.8%). In conclusion, ALI alone, or in combination with HCTZ, exhibits similar tolerability and antihypertensive efficacy to LIS alone, or in combination with HCTZ, in patients with severe hypertension.     

The effects of amlodipine compared to losartan in patients with mild to moderately severe hypertension

The calcium channel blocker amlodipine and angiotensin II receptor blocker losartan, with or without hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), were compared for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension in a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial. Following a 2-week placebo run-in, 440 adults (45-80 years old) were randomized to receive either amlodipine 5 mg once daily or losartan 50 mg once daily. Patients who failed to meet the sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) reduction goal of 相似文献   

Twenty-four hour blood pressure effect of once-daily lisinopril, enalapril, and placebo in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

This multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study compared the antihypertensive effects of equal doses of two long-acting angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. After a two-week, placebo run-in phase, 110 patients with mild to moderate hypertension were randomised to receive 10 mg lisinopril or enalapril, or placebo for 4 weeks. Office BPs were measured at regular intervals throughout the study. Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) was measured at baseline and after the first and final doses of study drug. Serum ACE activity and aldosterone were obtained concomitantly with each ABP monitoring. Office BP differences from placebo reached (P less than 0.05) or approached (P less than 0.10) statistical significance at all observations for the lisinopril group but were not significant for any observation in the enalapril group and approached significance on two occasions. After four weeks of treatment, ABP analysis revealed that the lisinopril and enalapril groups, when compared with placebo, had similar and significant systolic and diastolic AUC reductions (P less than 0.01) from baseline over the 24 h dosing interval. During the second half of the dosing interval, 13-24 h post drug administration, the lisinopril group was significantly different from placebo (systolic BP, P = 0.002; diastolic BP, P = 0.005) while the enalapril group was not. Both drugs were well tolerated. The results indicate that monotherapy with 10 mg of lisinopril is as effective as with 10 mg of enalapril, and that ABP monitoring is useful in more precisely depicting the clinical effect of the known pharmacokinetic properties of these two agents.     

Nocturnal reduction of blood pressure and the antihypertensive response to a diuretic or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor in obese hypertensive patients

During a 12-week, multicenter study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) for the treatment of obesity-related hypertension, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring was performed both at baseline and at study completion in 124 patients. Patients were randomized to three groups: placebo, lisinopril (10, 20, or 40 mg/day), or HCTZ (12.5, 25, or 50 mg/day). All groups were matched with regard to sex, race, age, body mass index, and waist/hip ratio. The primary analysis of ABP data revealed that both lisinopril and HCTZ effectively lowered mean 24-h systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure compared with placebo, (mean change from baseline SBP/DBP: −12.0/−8.2, −10.6/−5.5, and −0.3/−0.5 mm Hg, respectively); however, lisinopril lowered DBP better than HCTZ (P < .05). Secondary analyses of groups revealed that men responded better to lisinopril than HCTZ (−11.9/−7.3 v −6.6/−3.5 mm Hg, respectively), whereas women responded well to both drugs. White patients responded better to lisinopril than HCTZ, whereas black patients showed a significant response to HCTZ only. Response to treatment was also influenced by patient classification of 24-h blood pressure profiles, ie, “dipper” or “nondipper.” Overall, the majority of obese hypertensives were nondippers. Nondippers (n = 82) responded well to both drugs (−10.4/−6.9 v −12.5/−5.7 mm Hg, P < .05 v placebo), whereas dippers (n = 42) responded to lisinopril (−11.7/−9.4 mm Hg, P < .05 v placebo and HCTZ), but not HCTZ (−5.6/−4.1 mm Hg, P = NS v placebo). Results of 24-h ABP data show that both lisinopril and HCTZ are effective therapies for obesity-related hypertension and that response to treatment is influenced by sex, race, and dipper/nondipper status.     

Effects of celecoxib on ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients on ACE inhibitors

Nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents have been shown to attenuate the antihypertensive efficacy of ACE inhibitors with average increases in systolic blood pressure (BP) of 5 to 10 mm Hg. Less is known about the specific cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors now widely used for the treatment of arthritis. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of celecoxib compared with placebo on 24-hour BP levels in ACE inhibitor-treated patients with hypertension. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial involving 178 men and women (mean age, 53 years) with essential hypertension who were treated and controlled with lisinopril monotherapy (10 to 40 mg daily). Baseline BP values were obtained using 24-hour ambulatory recordings. Patients received either celecoxib, 200 mg twice daily (twice the recommended dose for osteoarthritis) (n=91), or placebo (n=87) for 4 weeks, and changes in the 24-hour BP, body weight, and clinical laboratory parameters were assessed. Mean changes from baseline in the 24-hour systolic and diastolic BP were 2.6/1.5+/-0.9/0.6 mm Hg on celecoxib versus 1.0/0.3+/-1/0.6 mm Hg on placebo (P=0.34 for systolic BP; P=0.45 for diastolic BP). The proportion of patients whose 24-hour BP increased by at least 5, 10, 15, or 20 mm Hg were also similar on celecoxib and placebo. No changes in body weight, serum creatinine, or potassium occurred in either group. Thus, these data demonstrate that high doses of celecoxib have no significant effect on the antihypertensive effect of the ACE inhibitor lisinopril. The placebo-subtracted changes observed in 24-hour BP (1.6/1.2 mm Hg) are less than what has been reported for nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents in ACE inhibitor-treated patients.     

Blood Pressure Effects of Combined β-Blocker and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Therapy Compared With the Individual Agents: A Placebo-Controlled Study With Nebivolol and Lisinopril

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012; 14:588–592. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Blood pressure (BP) reductions when combining blockers of the renin‐angiotensin system (RAS) and β‐blockers have generally not been shown to be greater than for individual agents, possibly because of overlapping mechanisms of action. The authors tested the additivity of the β‐blocker nebivolol, which has vasodilating activity, with the angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril in patients with stage 2 diastolic hypertension. The BP effects of placebo (n=93), nebivolol 5 mg to 20 mg daily (n=185), lisinopril 10 mg to 40 mg daily (n=189), and nebivolol 5 mg to 20 mg + lisinopril 10 mg to 40 mg (n=189) during 6 weeks of treatment were compared. The primary end point was change in diastolic BP (DBP). For the full cohort, baseline BP was 163.8/104.4 mm Hg, mean age was 49.2 years, 58% were men, 62% were white, and 34% were black. DBP fell by 17.2±10.2 mm Hg with the combination, greater than placebo (8.0±9.2, P<.0001), nebivolol (13.3±8.9, P=.0010), and lisinopril (12.0±9.8, P<.0001). For systolic BP, corresponding reductions were 19.2±19.8 mm Hg, 9.9±16.4 (P<.0001 vs combination), 14.4±14.1 (P=.0470), and 16.1±17.2 (P=.0704). Adverse event rates were similar in all groups. This study demonstrated the potential antihypertensive benefits of combining nebivolol with a RAS blocker.     

Blood pressure response to metoprolol and chlorthalidone in European and African Americans with hypertension

Despite the availability of many antihypertensive drug classes, half of patients with hypertension have uncontrolled blood pressure (BP). The authors sought to assess the effect of age on BP response in European American and African American patients with hypertension. Clinic BP from the PEAR2 (Pharmacogenomics Evaluation of Antihypertensive Responses 2) study was used to estimate BP responses from baseline following sequential treatment with metoprolol 100 mg twice daily and chlorthalidone 25 mg daily for 8 to 9 weeks each, with a minimum 4‐week washout between treatments. BP responses to both drugs were compared in 159 European Americans and 119 African Americans by age with adjustment for baseline BP and sex. European Americans younger than 50 years responded better to metoprolol than chlorthalidone (diastolic BP: ?9.6 ± 8.0 vs ?5.9 ± 6.8 mm Hg, adjusted P = .003), whereas patients 50 years and older responded better to chlorthalidone than metoprolol (systolic BP: ?18.7 ± 13.8 vs ?13.6 ± 14.8 mm Hg, adjusted P = .008). African Americans younger than 50 years responded similarly to both drugs, whereas those 50 years and older responded better to chlorthalidone than metoprolol (?17.0 ± 13.2/?9.6 ± 7.5 vs ?7.0 ± 18.6/?6.7 ± 9.3 mm Hg, adjusted P<.0001/.008). Therefore, age should be considered when selecting antihypertensive therapy in European and African American populations with hypertension.     

Efficacy of once-daily lisinopril monotherapy in systemic hypertension

Lisinopril is a new, long-acting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor formulated for once-daily treatment of hypertension. This study assessed the 24-h efficacy and tolerability of lisinopril in Chinese patients with mild to moderate hypertension of World Health Organization Stages I to II. A total of 30 patients aged 30 to 60 years (mean 47 ± 9) entered a 2-week washout period. All patients had ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (BP) > 90 mmHg and were given active treatment with lisinopril for 4 to 7 weeks. The dose of lisinopril was titrated from 10 to 40 mg daily (at 8-9 A. M.). In each patient, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (SpaceLabs 90202) was performed twice, once before and once following treatment. Mean 24-hour systolic/diastolic BPs after lisinopril were significantly decreased compared with baseline values (132 ± 12/86 ± 7 vs. 150 ± 11/98 ± 7 mmHg; p < 0.0005/ 0.0005). The average dose of lisinopril was 14.5 ± 5 mg daily after a titration period of 5 weeks of treatment. Mean daytime (6 A. M. to 6 P. M.) BP decreased from 152 ± 11/100 ± 8 to 134 ± 12/87 ± 8 mmHg (p < 0.0005/0.0005) and nighttime (6 P.M. to 6 A. M.) BP from 147 ± 14/95 ± 9 to 128 ± 14/83 ± 8 mmHg ( p < 0.0005/0.0005). BP reduction was more pronounced during the night. Before treatment, the circadian variation showed a peak BP at 11 A. M. and nadir at 3 P. M. After treatment, significant BP reduction (p < 0.0005/0.0005) was seen throughout the 24-h period. The circadian rhythm of BP was preserved as indicated by similar BP standard deviations (14 ± 3/11 ± 2 vs. 13 ± 3/10 ± 2 mmHg). Mean heart rate increased from 76 to 80 beats/min (p < 0.05). Four patients reported having a nonproductive cough. Thus, lisinopril administered as once-daily monotherapy provided effective BP control over a 24-h period with preserved circadian rhythm.     

Comparative antihypertensive efficacy of angiotensin receptor blocker-based treatment in African-American and white patients

Blood pressure (BP) reductions with agents that block the renin-angiotensin system are regarded as less effective as monotherapy in African Americans than other ethnic groups. This practice-based study compares the efficacy of an angiotensin receptor blocker-based regimen in African-American and Caucasian patients. Included in the 10-week study were 173 African-American and 1296 Caucasian patients. Efficacy was based on differences in 24-hour ambulatory BP. After baseline ambulatory BP monitoring and office BPs were obtained, all patients were started or switched to the angiotensin receptor blocker telmisartan, 40-80 mg daily, plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily (if needed for office BP control: <140/90 mm Hg). More African Americans required the addition of a low-dose thiazide diuretic than Caucasians (47.3% vs. 34.9%; p=0.021). Once patients with white coat hypertension were excluded (i.e., those with baseline ambulatory BP monitoring <130/80 mm Hg), ambulatory BP monitoring changes were similar between groups. A greater proportion of African Americans than Caucasians without white coat hypertension also needed combination therapy (52.1% vs. 39.5%; p=0.04). While achievement of BP goal was similar between groups by office criterion (<140/90 mm Hg), differences were noted by ambulatory BP monitoring (<130/80 mm Hg) (48.0% in African American vs. 63.2% in Caucasians; p=0.01) despite the same BP reductions, reflecting higher baseline values in African Americans. We conclude that an angiotensin receptor blocker as part of a BP-lowering strategy is effective in previously untreated African-American patients, although a higher proportion will require the use of a diuretic compared with Caucasians.     

Effects of blood pressure and the renin‐angiotensin system on platelet activation in type 2 diabetes

Aims/Introduction: Platelet‐derived microparticles (PDMP) are released from the platelets either after activation or in response to physical stimulation in vivo. The present study examined the association between blood pressure and PDMP, and the effects of high‐dose angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) on PDMP in patients with type 2 diabetes. Materials and Methods: The study subjects consisted of 28 type 2 diabetes patients with blood pressure ≥130/80 mmHg who were treated with valsartan (80 mg daily). The patients were randomly assigned to take either 80 mg of telmisartan (Tel group) or 160 mg of valsartan (Val group) and then were followed up for 24 weeks. Thereafter, the patients were switched to combination therapy (5 mg of amlodipine with 40 mg of telmisartan [Tel group] or 80 mg of valsartan [Val group]) for 12 weeks. Results: Although the ambulatory blood pressure did not change, the PDMP levels were significantly decreased from baseline to week 24 (high dose ARB). In contrast, combination therapy reduced both blood pressure and PDMP levels compared with the baseline. Although the PDMP level was significantly correlated with the morning BP elevation at baseline and week 36 (combination therapy), this same relationship was not found at week 24. There were no significant differences in the blood pressure and PDMP levels between the two groups. Conclusions: Patients with morning hypertension might be at risk for cardiovascular diseases. High‐dose renin‐angiotensin system inhibition and blood pressure control are both considered to reduce cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040‐1124.2010.00048.x, 2010)     

Optimal dose of lisinopril for renoprotection in type 1 diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy: a randomised crossover trial

Aims/hypothesis  The purpose of this study was to evaluate the optimal renoprotective effect of ultrahigh doses of lisinopril, as reflected by short-term changes in urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER), in type 1 diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy. Methods  At the Steno Diabetes Center, 49 type 1 diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy completed this double-masked randomised crossover trial consisting of an initial washout period followed by three treatment periods each lasting 2 months, where all patients received lisinopril 20, 40 and 60 mg once daily in randomised order in addition to slow-release furosemide. Allocation was concealed by sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes. UAER, 24 h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and estimated GFR were determined at baseline and after each treatment period. Results  All 49 patients completed all three treatment periods. Baseline values were: UAER (geometric mean [95% CI]) 362 (240–545) mg/24 h, 24 h ABP (mean [SD]) 142 (14)/74 (8) mmHg and estimated GFR 75 (29) ml min⁻¹ 1.73 m⁻². Reductions in UAER from baseline were 63%, 71% and 70%, respectively, with the increasing doses of lisinopril (p < 0.001). Compared with lisinopril 20 mg there was a further reduction in UAER of 23% with lisinopril 40 mg and 19% with 60 mg, p < 0.05. ABP was reduced from baseline by 10/5, 13/7 and 12/7 mmHg (p < 0.001 vs baseline, p < 0.05 for diastolic ABP 20 vs 40 mg, otherwise NS between doses). The difference in UAER between 20 and 40 mg lisinopril was significant after adjustment for changes in ABP (p < 0.01). Two patients were excluded from the study because of an increase in plasma creatinine and one because of high BP; otherwise the study medication was well tolerated with few, mild, dose-independent adverse effects. Conclusions/interpretation  Lisinopril 40 mg once daily is generally safe and offers additional reductions in BP and UAER in comparison with the currently recommended dose of 20 mg. Lisinopril 60 mg offers no further beneficial effect. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00118976 Funding: This study was financed out of local funds and was not supported by the medical industry. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.     

Comparison of long-term hemodynamic effects at rest and during exercise of lisinopril plus sodium restriction versus hydrochlorothiazide in essential hypertension

To investigate whether sodium restriction might replace thiazides in promoting blood pressure (BP) reduction by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, the long-term hemodynamic effect of lisinopril plus sodium restriction versus lisinopril plus hydrochlorothiazide was compared at rest and during dynamic exercise in 2 groups of essential hypertensive patients. Mean pretreatment intraarterial BP at rest sitting was 177/107 mm Hg. The patients were randomly allocated to lisinopril combined with either low salt diet (low salt group, n = 13) or hydrochlorothiazide (diuretic group, n = 12). After 1 year of treatment the mean dose of lisinopril was 25 mg in both groups. In the low salt group sodium excretion was reduced from 188 to 129 mmol/24 hours (p less than 0.01). In the diuretic group sodium excretion was unchanged with a mean dose of hydrochlorothiazide of 19 mg. BP was reduced (p less than 0.001) in both groups: at rest 16 and 21% and during exercise 10 and 13% in the low salt and the diuretic groups, respectively. Total peripheral resistance was reduced (p less than 0.05) in both groups: at rest 14 and 7% and during exercise 8 and 5% in the low salt and the diuretic groups, respectively. Overall cardiac output was reduced (p less than 0.05) in the diuretic group but remained unchanged in the low salt group. Thus, lisinopril--either in combination with a diuretic or sodium restriction--induces marked reduction in BP due to decreases in peripheral vascular resistance both at rest and during exercise.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Evaluation of antihypertensive therapy with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide

BACKGROUND: Most patients with hypertension require more than one agent to control blood pressure (BP). The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, factorial design study. After a placebo run-in period, eligible patients (n = 502) with a baseline mean seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) of 100 to 115 mm Hg were randomized to one of 12 groups: placebo, olmesartan medoxomil monotherapy (10, 20, or 40 mg/day, HCTZ monotherapy (12.5 or 25 mg/day), or one of six groups of olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ combination therapy. The primary endpoint was the change in mean trough SeDBP from baseline at week 8. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine whether at least one combination produced a larger reduction in SeDBP at week 8 than the individual corresponding component doses, but did not compare BP reductions with different combination doses. RESULTS: Olmesartan medoxomil plus HCTZ produced greater reductions in both SeDBP and seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) at week 8 than did monotherapy with either component. All olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ combinations significantly reduced SeDBP and SeSBP compared with placebo in a dose-dependent manner. Reductions from baseline in mean trough SeSBP/SeDBP were 3.3/8.2 mm Hg, 20.1/16.4 mm Hg, and 26.8/21.9 mm Hg with placebo, olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg, and olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 40/25 mg, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ combination therapy produced BP reductions of up to 26.8/21.9 mm Hg and was well tolerated.