Influence of a single dose of 20 mg tadalafil, a phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor, on ambulatory blood pressure in subjects with hypertension

AIMS: To test the non-inferiority of a single dose of tadalafil 20 mg compared with placebo with respect to 26-h mean ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure in treated and untreated hypertensive subjects. METHODS: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study in 114 subjects with hypertension (36 subjects on no therapy with daytime mean ambulatory blood pressure >/= 140/85 mmHg; 38 subjects on two to four classes of antihypertensive agents with daytime mean ambulatory blood pressure >/=140/85 mmHg and 40 subjects on two to four classes of antihypertensive agents with ambulatory blood pressure < 140/85 mmHg). RESULTS: Overall tadalafil reduced mean ambulatory blood pressure monitor systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 4.8 mmHg [95% confidence interval (Cl) 3.7, 5.9; P < 0.01] and 2.9 mmHg (95% CI 1.9, 3.6; P < 0.01), respectively, compared with placebo. In hypertensive subjects with uncontrolled blood pressure on two to four classes of antihypertensive agents (n = 36) tadalafil reduced mean ABPM systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 7.5 mmHg (95% CI 5.4, 9.6; P < 0.01) and 4.3 mmHg (95% CI 6.1, 8.9; P < 0.01) compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with uncontrolled hypertension on multiple agents the addition of tadalafil 20 mg lowered mean 26-h blood pressure.     

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

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

Antihypertensive effect of lisinopril assessed by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study.

The antihypertensive effect of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor lisinopril administered in a single dose of 20 mg was evaluated by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. Twenty-four patients (21 men and 3 women, mean age 52 +/- 6 years) with mild to moderate hypertension were included in the study and randomly assigned to two consecutive treatments with lisinopril 20 mg and placebo, each administered for 4 weeks. On the last day of each treatment, BP was assessed by noninvasive 24-h ABPM. BP was significantly lower after lisinopril than after placebo in a 24-h period (mean 24-h systolic BP (SBP) with lisinopril 120 +/- 7 mm Hg and with placebo 135 +/- 9 mm Hg; mean day SBP with lisinopril 125 +/- 3 mm Hg and with placebo 142 +/- 5 mm Hg; mean night SBP with lisinopril 112 +/- 4 mm Hg and with placebo 124 +/- 6 mm Hg; mean 24-h diastolic BP (DBP) with lisinopril 76 +/- 6 mm Hg, and with placebo 87 +/- 8 mm Hg; mean day DBP with lisinopril 80 +/- 3 mm Hg and with placebo 93 +/- 4 mm Hg; mean night DBP with lisinopril 69 +/- 2 mm Hg and with placebo 79 +/- 5 mm Hg, p less than 0.001). Mean 24-h, mean day, and mean night heart rate (HR) did not differ significantly between placebo and lisinopril treatments. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant influence on SBP (p less than 0.001) and DBP (p less than 0.001) throughout the treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Comparison of monotherapy with irbesartan 150 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension.

OBJECTIVE. The primary objective of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of the angiotensin II receptor blocker irbesartan 150 mg and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine 5 mg in the treatment of patients with seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-110 mmHg. DESIGN. Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, comparative pilot study. METHODS. Subjects were 18-65 years of age, with DBP 95-110 mmHg, and of non-African American origin. Following a three week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, 181 subjects were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-daily irbesartan 150 mg (n=89) or amlodipine 5 mg (n=92) for four weeks. Trough (24+/-3 hours post-dosing) BP measurements were obtained at baseline and at Weeks 2 and 4 under standardised, controlled conditions. Response was defined as DBP <90 mmHg or a reduction from baseline of 10 mmHg. RESULTS. After four weeks of treatment, the mean (+/-SE) decrease from baseline in DBP was 9.4+/-0.6 mmHg in the irbesartan group vs. 9.6+/-0.6 mmHg in the amlodipine group (p=0.806). The mean decrease from baseline in seated systolic BP was 12.2+/-1.0 mmHg in the irbesartan group vs. 12.0+/-1.0 mmHg in the amlodipine group (p=0.885). Overall, 62% of subjects in the irbesartan group and 63% in the amlodipine group had a response (p=0.609), and 54% and 56% of patients (p=0.596), respectively, had their DBP normalised (<90 mmHg). Adverse events were reported by 21.3% of patients receiving irbesartan and 20.7% receiving amlodipine. Conclusions. Irbesartan 150 mg demonstrated comparable efficacy to amlodipine 5 mg, thereby confirming its value as an antihypertensive treatment option in non-African American patients with DBP 95-110 mmHg.     

A comparison of bisoprolol and atenolol in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension.

1. Fourteen patients (mean age 56.0, range 37-61 years; eight females) with mild essential hypertension (DBP greater than 90 mm Hg on placebo) completed a randomised, double-blind placebo controlled crossover study comparing the hypotensive effects of bisoprolol (10-20 mg) and atenolol (50-100 mg) each taken once daily. 2. Bisoprolol had a significantly greater antihypertensive effect than atenolol, reducing sitting blood pressures by 15.9 mm Hg (diastolic) and 21.9 mm Hg (systolic) compared with placebo. Corresponding figures for atenolol were 10.7 and 5.7 mm Hg respectively. Bisoprolol reduced standing blood pressures by 15.9 mm Hg (diastolic) and 22.8 mm Hg (systolic) compared with 7.3 and 8.6 mm Hg respectively for atenolol. 3. Examination of the pharmacokinetic data showed that bisoprolol had a median elimination half-life of 11.2 h during chronic dosing, compared with 6.4 h for atenolol. For bisoprolol, the median clearance fell from 264 ml min-1 after a single dose to 212 ml min-1 during chronic dosing, although clinically significant accumulation would not be expected during chronic administration. 4. Overall, the results suggest that bisoprolol may be a more effective antihypertensive agent than atenolol but larger studies are necessary to confirm these findings.     

The pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles of controlled-release formulations of felodipine and metoprolol in free and fixed combinations in elderly hypertensive patients

AIMS: The aims of this study were to study the efficacy and tolerability of felodipine extended release (ER) 5 mg and metoprolol controlled release (CR/ZOC) 50 mg given as a fixed combination (Logimax) or as a free combination in elderly (age greater than 60 years) hypertensive patients, using ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. A secondary aim was to relate the efficacy of the free and fixed combinations with pharmacokinetic profiles. METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised three-way crossover multi-centre study. BP was measured for 26 h using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), which was performed on the last day of the three treatment phases. RESULTS: Mean sitting BPs, measured during the trough period with ABPM, were significantly lower with both the free and fixed combinations of metoprolol and felodipine than placebo (141/83 mmHg free, 140/83 mmHg fixed, 156/93 mmHg placebo). The mean BPs measured over 24 h using ABPM were 143/82 mmHg, 140/82 mmHg and 158/93 mmHg for the free, fixed and placebo treatment arms, respectively. The trough-to-peak ratios (T:P) were 75% and 79% for the systolic BP and 70% and 70% for the diastolic BP for the free and fixed combinations, respectively. Pharmacokinetic evaluation revealed identical plasma concentration-time curves for felodipine given as the free or fixed combination. Comparison of the plasma concentration-time curves for metoprolol revealed a delay in the release rate from the fixed combination formulation. No significant differences in BP control between the active treatments were noted during this period. Of 26 patients entered into the study, 3 withdrew during active phase for non-drug-related reasons. No patient withdrew from active treatment due to treatment-related adverse events. The frequency of adverse event reporting for the fixed combination of felodipine and metoprolol was similar to that for placebo (60% and 58%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that once-daily dosing with either the free or fixed combination of felodipine 5 mg and metoprolol 50 mg produces a significant sustained reduction in systolic and diastolic BP with similar plasma concentration profiles over a 24-h period.     

Prospective controlled trial of two nifedipine extended release formulations in the treatment of essential hypertension

The aim of this study was to assess the pharmacodynamic equivalence of two different slow-release formulations of nifedipine (CAS-21829-25-4). In a prospective, controlled, double-blind clinical trial, 42 patients with essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-114 mmHg) underwent an initial washout, drug free period of 2 weeks, after which they were randomized to receive either 30 mg of nifedipine in the test preparation "XL" (Nifecard) or 30 mg of nifedipine in a reference formulation, "LA", during six weeks. The response to treatment was assessed by measuring the blood pressure (BP) every two weeks (standard office mercury sphygmomanometry) and by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Of the 42 included patients 36 (85.5%) completed the trial: 19 on "XL" and 17 on "LA". After 2 weeks of therapy the DBP decreased by about 11% (-13.4 mmHg) and 10% (-9.5%), respectively, after 4 weeks the mean decrease versus the end of the placebo period reached about 14% (-15.5 mmHg) and 11% (-13 mmHg), and at the end of the trial the DBPs were lower by about 13% (-14.5 mmHg) in both groups. In all these measurements the within group differences were significant (p < 0.001), while the between groups differences were not (p > 0.05). Quite comparable results were obtained with ABPM, e.g. in the "XL" group the systolic blood pressure at the end of the study was lower by 12.3% (-4.6 mm Hg) and in the "LA" group, by 10.6% (-9.0 mm Hg); p = 0.358. The adverse effects were similar in both groups and they required neither particular interventions nor withdrawal from the study. The drugs under study were comparably effective and well tolerated antihypertensives.     

Antihypertensive treatment in elderly patients aged 75 years or over: a 24-week study of the tolerability of candesartan cilexetil in relation to hydrochlorothiazide

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and tolerability of the AT1-receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil in relation to the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in elderly patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel group study. 32 general practice centres and 3 hospital centres in Denmark and Finland participated in this study. Patients: 185 patients aged > or =75 years with mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 95 to 114mm Hg. INTERVENTIONS: After a placebo run-in period of 4 to 8 weeks, patients were randomised to once daily treatment with candesartan cilexetil 8mg or HCTZ 12.5mg for 24 weeks. In both treatment groups the dosage could be doubled after > or =2 weeks [according to blood pressure (BP) response] and, if necessary, subsequently decreased if the higher dosage was poorly tolerated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients with at least 1 adverse event; changes in laboratory values, electrocardiogram and BP during the double-blind treatment period. RESULTS: Once daily candesartan cilexetil 8 to 16mg was very well tolerated. The most common adverse events in both treatment groups were dizziness or vertigo and headache. Although the profile of adverse events was generally similar in the 2 treatment groups, it was notable that hypokalaemia and hyperuricaemia were not found in patients treated with candesartan cilexetil but occurred in 8.1 and 6.5%, respectively, of patients treated with HCTZ. At week 24, the adjusted mean changes in sitting DBP (24 hours postdose) from baseline were -12.0mm Hg [95% confidence interval (CI) -1 0.4 to -13.6] in patients treated with candesartan cilexetil and -11.4mm Hg (95% CI -9.3 to -13.6) in patients treated with HCTZ. The difference between treatments in favour of candesartan cilexetil was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that antihypertensive treatment with candesartan cilexetil in elderly patients (aged > or =75 years) is well tolerated with a good safety profile and avoids the metabolic adverse effects of diuretic therapy.     

老年高血压患者血压变异性比较

目的:探讨老年高血压患者血压变异性的差别.方法:选择原发性高血压84例,进行动态血压监测(ABPM),血压变异性以24 h ABPM监测到的血压标准差(S)作为长时血压变异(LBPV)的指标.结果:84例老年高血压患者白昼、夜间及24小时的收缩压的变异性均大于舒张压的变异性,两者有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论:老年高血压患者收缩压的血压变异性大于舒张压的血压变异性.     

Serotonergic blockade compared with beta-adrenergic blockade in systemic hypertension: a double-blind comparison of ketanserin with propranolol

The safety and efficacy of ketanserin, a competitive serotonin blocking agent, and propranolol were compared in 33 patients with mild to moderate hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 95-115 mm Hg) using a placebo run-in, randomized, double-blind parallel study design. All patients received placebo for 4 weeks, then were randomized to receive increasing doses of either ketanserin (20, 40 mg twice daily) or propranolol (40, 80 mg twice daily) to achieve a goal sitting DBP less than 90 mm Hg. Patients not achieving the goal blood pressure with either drug as monotherapy, received the other drug in combination. At the end of the active monotherapy phase (week 10 of the study), propranolol demonstrated a greater decrease in DBP from baseline, as compared to ketanserin (-7.9 +/- 10.9 mm Hg with propranolol, P less than 0.05; -1.0 +/- 7.2 mm Hg with ketanserin, P = NS). Four out of 16 patients achieved goal response on propranolol, compared to 3/17 for ketanserin. With combination treatment, 9/18 patients reached the goal response; the addition of propranolol to ketanserin in non-responders resulted in further reduction of sitting DBP of -10.3 +/- 6.3 compared to monotherapy (P less than 0.001), while the addition of ketanserin to non-responders produced no significant response in sitting DBP. Propranolol showed a consistent effect in slowing heart rate. Ketanserin displayed less frequent side effects than propranolol. Propranolol used twice daily appears to be more effective than twice daily ketanserin use in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

Efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine in patients with poorly controlled mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with candesartan cilexetil, 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (CC/HCTZ), 12.5 mg was compared with that of amlodipine, in a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension inadequately controlled by monotherapy. After a two week run-in period on existing therapy, patients with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 90-110 mmHg and a sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) 相似文献   

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.     

Enalapril and nifedipine in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension: a 6 month comparison.

1. In a double-blind, randomised, parallel group study, 128 patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 125 mm Hg (Phase V) after 2-4 weeks run-in on placebo, received enalapril 10-40 mg once daily (65 patients) or nifedipine retard 10-40 mg twice daily (63 patients), utilising a double dummy technique. Dual target blood pressures were less than 150 mm Hg systolic and less than 90 mm Hg sitting diastolic. Inadequate responders had hydrochlorothiazide 12.5-50 mg once daily added. 2. The 3 h post-dose sitting blood pressures were lowered by 18/14 mm Hg (enalapril) and 20/14 mm Hg (nifedipine), but nifedipine gave greater standing reductions (16/13 mm Hg enalapril, 22/17 mm Hg nifedipine). The dual target blood pressures were achieved by 45% of those taking enalapril monotherapy and 43% of those taking nifedipine monotherapy. At the end of the hydrochlorothiazide phase the dual target pressures were achieved by 63% of the enalapril group and 56% of the nifedipine group. 3. Overall, 17 patients reported adverse events during the placebo run-in. During the active treatment-periods, 42 patients in the enalapril group experienced adverse events, as did 49 of those on nifedipine. Orthostatic effects were confined to those taking enalapril, whereas flushing/erythema, oedema and palpitations were more common in the nifedipine group. 4. Five patients in the enalapril and 14 in the nifedipine groups were withdrawn because of adverse events. One of those withdrawn on enalapril had angioneurotic oedema.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Comparison of benazepril-amlodipine and captopril-thiazide combinations in the management of mild-to-moderate hypertension

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of benazepril 10 mg + amlodipine 5 mg combination (BZ+AM) versus captopril 50 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (CP+HT) combination. MATERIAL: 405 outpatients with mild-to-moderate arterial hypertension not adequately controlled by a monotherapy with ACE inhibitors or calcium channel blockers or diuretics entered this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. METHOD: After a 2-week placebo run-in, 397 patients with sitting diastolic (D) blood pressure (BP) > 95 mmHg and/or sitting systolic (S) BP > 160 mmHg were randomized to receive either BZ+AM (201 patients) or CP+HT (196 patients) once daily for 12 weeks. Main outcome measure was sitting DBP and SBP values at the end of active treatment. The response rate was defined as the proportion of patients with either a final sitting DBP < 90 mmHg or decreased by at least 10 mmHg or a sitting SBP < 150 mmHg or decreased by at least 20 mmHg from baseline. RESULTS: The DBP and SBP values obtained with BZ+AM were, respectively, 2.7 and 3.7 mmHg lower than those obtained with CP+HT (both p < 0.001 vs. CP+HT). The response rate in the BZ+AM group (94.8%) was better than that observed in the CP+HT group (86.0%, p = 0.004). The incidence of adverse events was similar with the 2 treatment regimens (17.9% for both). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest a higher antihypertensive efficacy of the fixed combination BZ 10 mg+AM 5 mg as compared with CP 50 mg+HT 25 mg.     

Antihypertensive effect of once daily sustained release isradipine: a placebo controlled cross-over study

Summary To evaluate the magnitude and duration of the antihypertensive effect of sustained release (SRO) isradipine, 37 uncomplicated essential hypertensive patients (diastolic blood pressure 100–115 mm Hg after a one month run-in on placebo) were randomised to receive, according to a double-blind cross-over design, isradipine SRO 5 mg once daily and the corresponding placebo for 1 month. At the end of each treatment period, sitting blood pressure and heart rate were measured immediately before and every hour for 6 h after the last dose. Thirty-four patients [16 m, age 54 (7) y] completed the study.As compared to randomised placebo, isradipine SRO significantly reduced the systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure. Absolute DBP decrements versus placebo peaked 6 h after dosing (-8.8 mm Hg) and were not significantly lower (-8.2 mm Hg) at the end of the dose interval. At the same times, the absolute decrements in SBP were -9.8 mm Hg and -9.7 mm Hg, respectively.DBP was normalised in 19 patients (56%) at peak and in 17 (50%) at trough time. The trough to peak efficacy ratio in patients with peak DBP 90 mm Hg was 70%. Heart rate was slightly increased by isradipine SRO. Adverse effects monitored with a check-list occurred in 8/36 patients (22%) on isradipine SRO and in 4/35 (11%) on randomized placebo.The data suggest that isradipine SRO is an effective antihypertensive drug, with a trough to peak efficacy ratio supporting once daily administration in most mild to moderate essential hypertensives.     

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

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

The response to the first dose of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor in uncomplicated hypertension--a placebo controlled study utilising ambulatory blood pressure recording.

1. The importance of total dose to the initial hypotensive response with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (quinapril) was assessed using a suggested 'maintenance' dose (20 mg) or matched placebo in a randomised double-blind study in patients with uncomplicated hypertension. 2. Thirty-two patients were recruited who were not on therapy or had not received diuretic therapy in their existing drug treatment in the preceding 4 weeks. Secondary causes of hypertension had previously been excluded and sustained clinic blood pressures of SBP greater than 160 mmHg and/or DBP greater than 90 mmHg were taken as indications for a trial of adjuvant or monotherapy with an ACE inhibitor. 3. After uneventful supervised therapy with quinapril in an open pilot study (n = 5) 27 patients entered a double-blind, randomised, crossover study of quinapril or placebo using ambulatory monitoring to assess BP response. 4. All patients remained asymptomatic and both therapy and monitoring were well tolerated. A smooth onset of antihypertensive effect was noted with an overall 24 h placebo corrected fall in systolic BP of 9.9 mmHg (7.2-12.6 95% CI) and diastolic BP of 6.4 mmHg (4.2-8.8) with no significant effect on heart rate. Individual placebo corrected maximal responses during the first 8 h following quinapril showed a wide range for both systolic (+1.56 to 44.0 mmHg) and diastolic (+2.3 to -35.6 mmHg) pressure. Larger falls tended to be associated with higher baseline pretreatment pressures but in no case did absolute systolic pressure fall below 100 mmHg during the first 8 h following administration of placebo or quinapril.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Hemodynamic and cognitive effects of lofexidine and methadone coadministration: a pilot study

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the hemodynamic and cognitive effects of lofexidine and methadone coadministration. DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind study. SETTING: Outpatient drug treatment research clinic. SUBJECTS: Fourteen participants (aged 18-45 yrs) with physical dependence on opioids. INTERVENTION: Subjects were stabilized on methadone maintenance therapy, starting with 30 mg/day and increasing by 10-mg/day increments, based on each subject's tolerability to achieve a target dose of 80 mg/day. After 3 weeks of methadone stabilization, lofexidine 0.4 mg/day or matching placebo were coadministered with methadone, in doses escalating by 0.2-mg/week increments, to achieve a target dose of 1.6 mg/day over the next 8 weeks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Acute orthostatic vital signs and neuropsychological effects of lofexidine and methadone coadministration were monitored for 5 hours after the dose on the first day of each new lofexidine dose. Orthostatic vital signs and adverse events were assessed daily thereafter to determine the effects of repeated doses. Lofexidine significantly decreased sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p=0.045 and p=0.033, respectively) compared with placebo (i.e., methadone alone). With lofexidine 0.4 mg/day, mean decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were 27 +/- 17 and 15 +/- 16 mm Hg, respectively. No significant association was noted between changes in orthostatic vital signs and lofexidine dose. Decreased cognitive efficiency was associated with lofexidine administration, and higher lofexidine doses adversely affected performance on a mathematical task compared with placebo (p=0.0035). The rate of adverse events was no higher with lofexidine than with placebo; the majority (54.3%) were common adverse effects of lofexidine. CONCLUSION: Significant changes in hemodynamic and cognitive efficiency were observed with coadministration of lofexidine and methadone compared with methadone alone. When patients receiving methadone are prescribed lofexidine, they should be closely monitored for cardiovascular and cognitive changes.     

Comparison of doxazosin GITS and standard doxazosin in the treatment of high blood pressure

OBJECTIVE: To examine (1) the relative therapeutic equivalence of 4 mg doxazosin gastrointestinal therapeutic system (DOX GITS) and 4 mg doxazosin standard (DOX-S4) and (2) the efficacy and safety of 4 mg DOX GITS versus 2 mg doxazosin standard (DOX-S2). PATIENTS: Male or female patients aged 18-80 diagnosed with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-110 mmHg and systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 180 mmHg) were randomized into the study. METHODS: This double-blind, parallel, 9-week trial compared DOX-GITS with doxazosin standard (DOX-S) in 310 hypertensive patients. Following a 2-week placebo run-in phase, patients were randomized to receive DOX-GITS at 4 mg/d or DOX-S at 2 or 4 mg/d. DOX GITS dosage remained unchanged at 4 mg throughout the study. Titration in the DOX-S groups was initiated at Week 0 with 1 mg DOX-S and increased to 2 mg DOX-S at Week 1. Dosage in the DOX-S4 group was increased to 4 mg DOX-S at Week 3. Therapeutic equivalence was measured by the change from baseline in sitting diastolic BP (DBP). Efficacy was assessed using the change from baseline for all blood pressure measures. Safety analysis included evaluation of laboratory tests at clinic visits and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Therapeutic equivalences between DOX GITS and DOX-S4 and DOX-S2 were established at all study visits except for a significant difference in favor of DOX GITS at Week 1 (p = 0.019) when the dose of DOX-S was 1 mg. All groups had a significant decrease in BP at all study visits compared with baseline. The proportion of patients who reached goal sitting DBP (< 90 mmHg) was similar among the three treatment groups, except at Week 1, when more patients in the DOX GITS group had obtained the goal compared with those in the DOX-S2 group (40.6% vs. 22.3%; p = 0.005). The proportion of patients who reached sitting SBP (< 140 mmHg) goal was similar among groups. AE profiles among the groups were similar. CONCLUSION: DOX GITS was as effective as DOX-S in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. The improved pharmacokinetic profile of the GITS formulation compared with the standard formulation allows a therapeutic dose to be delivered earlier and without dose titration. Both formulations of doxazosin were well tolerated.     

Clinical equivalence of two tablet formulations of felodipine

Objective: This study was performed to assess whether a new formulation of felodipine extended release (FER) tablets with a 9 mm diameter is similar to the presently used 11 mm diameter FER formulation with respect to antihypertensive effect and tolerability in patients with essential hypertension. A randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled, three-way cross-over study design was used. Patients: Twenty-four patients with a supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 95–115 mmHg after a 4-week placebo run-in period were given FER 5 mg 9 mm tablets, FER 5 mg 11 mm tablets and placebo in randomised order. The tablets were given once daily and each double-blind treatment period lasted for two weeks. Methods: Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed at the end of each treatment period. The primary effect variable was mean DBP over 24 hours. Nineteen patients had 24-hour blood pressure data valid for analysis using an analysis of variance with patient, treatment, period and carry-over as factors. Results: Both formulations of FER 5 mg tablets significantly reduced the mean 24-hour DBP compared to placebo. The 9 and 11 mm tablets resulted in, on average, 4.7 and 3.4 mmHg lower mean 24-hour DBP than placebo. There was, however, no significant difference between the two different FER formulations. Both FER formulations were well tolerated and similar to placebo in this respect. Conclusion: Both FER 5 mg tablet formulations (9 and 11 mm diameter), given once daily, were clinically equivalent with respect to antihypertensive effect and tolerability in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.