Diltiazem and captopril alone or in combination for treatment of mild to moderate systemic hypertension

The efficacy and safety of sustained-release diltiazem, 60 to 180 mg twice daily, was compared with that of captopril, 25 to 75 mg twice daily, alone and in combination, in 132 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (supine diastolic blood pressure [BP] 95 to 114 mm Hg). All patients received placebo for 4 to 6 weeks, followed by randomization to diltiazem or captopril during the double-blind monotherapy phase. Either study drug was titrated over 6 weeks to achieve a goal supine diastolic BP reduction of at least 10 mm Hg and a diastolic BP of less than 90 mm Hg. Patients achieving the goal BP reduction were maintained on monotherapy for an additional 8 weeks. Patients not achieving the treatment goal after 8 weeks with either drug alone received the other drug in combination, titrated to achieve goal BP response. Both drugs lowered BP significantly and, at the doses used, diltiazem had a greater effect on diastolic BP than did captopril. The mean changes from baseline at week 8 were -10.6 and -7.3 mm Hg, respectively, (p = 0.01). Goal BP was achieved in 38% of patients taking diltiazem monotherapy and in 34% of patients taking captopril monotherapy. There were no significant differences between diltiazem and captopril in diastolic or systolic BP reductions by race or age. The addition of alternate therapy for non-goal achievers at week 8 resulted in significant reductions in diastolic and systolic BP by week 16.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Comparison of diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide for treatment of patients 60 years of age or older with systemic hypertension

This randomized, double-blind, parallel design trial compared the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with either sustained-release diltiazem or hydrochlorothiazide in 61 men greater than or equal to 60 years of age with a diastolic blood pressure (BP) between 94 and 104 mm Hg. BP, heart rate, laboratory blood and urine tests, left ventricular wall thickness and mass index (as estimated by M-mode echocardiography) and rate and type of ventricular premature complexes (via ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring) were determined before, during and after drug treatment. Both drugs produced highly significant (p less than 0.001) decreases in supine and upright systolic and diastolic BP. The mean dosages of diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide used were 260 and 52 mg/day, respectively; at these dosages, 80% of diltiazem-treated versus 71% of hydrochlorothiazide-treated patients achieved goal reduction in BP (supine diastolic BP reduction of greater than 10 mm Hg and to less than 90 mm Hg). Both drugs were well tolerated, although hydrochlorothiazide therapy was associated with multiple biochemical abnormalities not seen with diltiazem. Neither drug affected left ventricular mass index or the rate of ventricular ectopic activity. Diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide are both effective and safe agents when used as monotherapy in older patients with systemic hypertension unaccompanied by other clinically significant cardiovascular disease.     

Diuretics versus calcium-channel blockers in systemic hypertension: a preliminary multicenter experience with hydrochlorothiazide and sustained-release diltiazem

The safety and efficacy of sustained-release diltiazem 120 to 180 mg, 2 times a day, were compared with hydrochlorothiazide 25 to 50 mg, 2 times a day, and the combination of diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide in 56 patients with mild to moderate hypertension (supine diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 114 mm Hg) using a placebo-controlled, parallel-design protocol. Data from an additional 21 patients were evaluated for safety only. The data reported herein represent the preliminary experience from a larger 200-patient multicenter study. All patients received placebo for 4 weeks, followed by either hydrochlorothiazide or diltiazem titrated to achieve a diastolic blood pressure reduction of greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg to reach a goal supine diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg. Patients not achieving the treatment goal received hydrochlorothiazide plus diltiazem. At week 14, on maintenance monotherapy, diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide produced comparable reductions in blood pressure from placebo baseline (160.3 +/- 24.3/101.7 +/- 5.5 to 145.2 +/- 24.1/89.8 +/- 7.4 mm Hg with diltiazem, 156.0 +/- 15.6/103.7 +/- 4.7 to 134.1 +/- 12.5/89.2 +/- 9.5 mm Hg with hydrochlorothiazide, p less than 0.001 for both). Diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide achieved goal blood pressure in 42% and 45% of patients, respectively. The effects in responders were sustained for 6 months. In patients who did not achieve the treatment goal, 63% responded to diltiazem plus hydrochlorothiazide.No clinically significant postural hypotension was observed on any regimen. Heart rate was slightly lower with diltiazem than with hydrochlorothiazide. Adverse effects were minimal with diltiazem, hydrochlorothiazide and diltiazem plus hydrochlorothiazide but more hypokalemia occurred with hydrochlorothiazide.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Antihypertensive therapy with diltiazem and comparison with hydrochlorothiazide

Fourteen hypertensive patients with a mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 153 +/- 16/100 +/- 4 mm Hg were treated successively with hydrochlorothiazide and diltiazem for 8 weeks each. The BP response and changes in heart rate, left ventricular size and function, and plasma catecholamine concentrations and renin activity were monitored. The 2 drugs had comparable antihypertensive effects, with mean decreases of 14, 9 and 11 mm Hg for the sitting, standing and supine diastolic BP, respectively, during hydrochlorothiazide treatment and mean decreases of 16, 18 and 12 mm Hg during diltiazem treatment. Heart rate was unchanged, although plasma norepinephrine concentrations increased significantly during diltiazem treatment. Plasma renin activity increased slightly, from 0.6 to 0.9 ng/ml/hour during diltiazem treatment, but the change was not significant (p less than 0.10). Left ventricular ejection fraction and end-diastolic volume were not affected by either agent. In conclusion, diltiazem is an effective antihypertensive agent, which because of its benign side effect profile, may be useful as a step 1 agent.     

Comparison of diltiazem and atenolol in young, physically active men with essential hypertension

The antihypertensive efficacy and effect on maximal exercise performance of diltiazem was evaluated and compared with atenolol in patients specifically selected on the basis of their being young and physically active. Diltiazem (sustained-release preparation, 90 mg twice daily) was administered to 14 patients (aged 33 +/- 2 years) and atenolol (50 mg once daily) to 13 patients (aged 30 +/- 2 years) with essential hypertension in a 16-week randomized, double-blind, parallel study. The 2 drugs had comparable antihypertensive effects at rest, with mean decreases of 18 and 17 mm Hg (p less than 0.001) for supine and standing diastolic blood pressure (BP), respectively, during diltiazem treatment, and mean decreases of 21 and 18 mm Hg (p less than 0.001) during atenolol treatment. During maximal graded exercise testing, systolic BP, diastolic BP, heart rate and heart rate-BP product were significantly reduced by both drugs. However, the reductions in systolic BP, heart rate and heart rate-BP product during exercise were considerably greater (p less than 0.001) with atenolol than with diltiazem. Maximal exercise performance was essentially unchanged with diltiazem and slightly (3%, p less than 0.05) reduced with atenolol. Thus, diltiazem is effective and well-tolerated single therapy for young patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension who lead a physically active life style and compares favorably with atenolol.     

Antihypertensive efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers in combination with hydrochlorothiazide: a review of the factorial-design studies

Most hypertensive patients require more than one drug for adequate blood pressure (BP) control. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommends starting treatment with a thiazide diuretic or, when BP is >20/10 mm Hg above goal or in patients with diabetes, using two different antihypertensive agents. Searches of Medline, EMBASE, and BIOSIS databases identified four similarly designed, randomized, factorial studies comparing various doses of angiotensin II receptor blockers with hydrochlorothiazide as monotherapy and in combination. The methodology and results of these studies were compared. The primary efficacy end point in these studies was a decrease from baseline in mean diastolic BP after 8 weeks of therapy. All currently available angiotensin I receptor blocker/hydrochlorothiazide combinations evaluated (irbesartan, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, and valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide) produced significant systolic BP and diastolic BP reductions. Olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide 40 mg/25 mg provided the largest mean reduction in absolute and placebo-corrected systolic BP/diastolic BP. For all angiotensin II receptor blocker/hydrochlorothiazide combinations evaluated, > or =63% of patients achieved a diastolic BP response (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg or > or =10-mm Hg reduction). In conclusion, the combination of an angiotensin II receptor blocker and hydrochlorothiazide produces more substantial BP responses than monotherapy with either component.     

Diltiazem and propranolol in mild to moderate essential hypertension as monotherapy or with hydrochlorothiazide

We compared the safety and efficacy of diltiazem and propranolol, and examined demographic factors influencing responses to these agents. One hundred ninety-six patients with supine diastolic blood pressures of 95 to 114 mm Hg were treated with propranolol (80 to 240 mg twice a day) or a sustained-release preparation of diltiazem (60 to 180 mg twice a day) in a double-blind, randomized, parallel group protocol for 6 months. Hydrochlorothiazide was added for patients not achieving the treatment goal. Both agents produced nearly identical and highly significant (p less than 0.001) reductions in supine blood pressure. There were no significant differences at the end of the optional combination therapy phase, although additional reduction with hydrochlorothiazide was slightly greater in the propranolol group. Blood pressure responses in relation to age, gender, race, and smoking history showed that diltiazem produced greater changes in older subjects and women, whereas propranolol was less effective in blacks. However, these differences were not critical.     

Effects of hydrochlorothiazide and diltiazem on reflex vasoconstriction in hypertension

The purpose of our study was to determine the effects of treatment with hydrochlorothiazide (n = 10) or diltiazem (n = 8) on reflex humoral, hemodynamic, and vascular responses to graded lower body negative pressure in subjects with mild to moderate hypertension (supine diastolic pressure, 95-114 mm Hg). All subjects received placebo for 2 to 4 weeks followed by either hydrochlorothiazide (25-50 mg b.i.d.) or diltiazem (120-180 mg b.i.d.) to achieve a reduction in supine diastolic pressure of 10 mm Hg or more and a final pressure below 90 mm Hg. Mean arterial pressure, forearm vascular resistance, plasma norepinephrine, and renin responses to graded lower body negative pressure (-10, -20, -40 mm Hg) and head-up tilt were examined before and after 12 weeks of treatment with either drug. Pretreatment basal values of mean arterial pressure (114 +/- 2 vs 117 +/- 2 mm Hg), forearm vascular resistance (29 +/- 3 vs 35 +/- 7 units), and plasma renin activity (0.7 +/- 0.2 vs 0.6 +/- 0.2 ng angiotensin I/ml/hr) were not significantly different between groups. There were no significant differences in basal plasma norepinephrine or in the increases of norepinephrine in response to lower body negative pressure before and after treatment in either group. Forearm vascular resistance responses to lower body negative pressure were virtually abolished in the diltiazem-treated group but not in the hydrochlorothiazide-treated group despite similar levels of mean arterial pressure and basal forearm vascular resistance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Comparison of acebutolol with and without hydrochlorothiazide versus carvedilol with and without hydrochlorothiazide in black patients with mild to moderate systemic hypertension.

In the present study, we assessed the antihypertensive efficacy of acebutolol 200 mg versus carvedilol 25 mg once daily, given as monotherapy for 3 months to 40 black patients (20 patients in each group, mean age 53+/-10 years, 24 women) with mean blood pressure (BP) during the day >90 and <110 mm Hg. Patients in whom blood pressure could not be controlled took medication, which was increased at 3-month intervals as follows: step 2, acebutolol 200 mg or carvedilol 25 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg once daily; step 3, acebutolol 400 mg or carvedilol 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg once daily. Overall, significant but modest BP reduction was achieved with both beta blockers at 3 months. In the acebutolol group, 24-hour BP decreased from 142+/-15/94+/-7 mm Hg to 138+/-16/89+/-8 mm Hg (p<0.005 for diastolic BP at 3 months vs baseline). Mean day BP decreased from 145+/-15/98+/-5 mm Hg to 140+/-14/93+/-7 mm Hg (p<0.05 for systolic BP and p<0.0005 for diastolic BP at 3 months vs. baseline). In the carvedilol group, 24-hour BP decreased from 145+/-11/93+/-6 to 138+/-16/87+/-9 mm Hg (p<0.05 for systolic BP and p<0.005 for diastolic BP at 3 months vs baseline). Mean day BP decreased from 149+/-10/99+/-5 to 141+/-16/91+/-87 mm Hg (p<0.05 for systolic BP and p<0.0005 for diastolic BP at 3 months vs baseline). At 12 months, most patients required combination therapy to achieve BP control. The control (mean day diastolic BP <90 mm Hg) and response (mean day diastolic BP decrease > or =10 mm Hg) rates at 12 months were 59% and 82% in the acebutolol and 78% and 78% in the carvedilol groups, respectively. In conclusion, acebutolol or carvedilol in combination with hydrochlorothiazide, rather than acebutolol or carvedilol alone, should be considered as first-line antihypertensive therapy in black patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

Atenolol plus nifedipine for mild to moderate systemic hypertension after fixed doses of either agent alone

Three therapies were used to treat 35 patients with mild to moderate systemic hypertension: (1) the cardioselective beta-adrenoceptor blocker atenolol, (2) the calcium antagonist nifedipine and (3) combination therapy for those who failed to reach the target diastolic blood pressure (BP) of less than 90 mm Hg with monotherapy. After an initial run-in placebo period, when the mean supine diastolic BP was 102 +/- 1 mm Hg (mean +/- standard error of the mean), patients were randomized (double-blind) to atenolol, 100 mg as a single daily dose or nifedipine (slow-release form), 20 mg twice daily, then to a washout dummy placebo period before crossover. Each period lasted 4 weeks. Supine, erect and exercise BP were recorded. Atenolol and nifedipine, in the same fixed doses but in combination, were given to 20 patients in whom either supine or erect diastolic BP exceeded 90 mm Hg after the period of monotherapy. Atenolol monotherapy reduced the erect diastolic BP to less than 90 mm Hg in 14 patients (40%); of the remainder, 1 patient responded only to fixed-dose nifedipine and 11 to combination therapy, yielding a total success rate of 74%. The combination gave enhanced control, as shown by a further decrease in supine and erect BP and by better control of exercise BP; these effects were achieved without an increased incidence of adverse effects. The mean reductions in supine diastolic BP were: atenolol, 9 +/- 2 mm Hg; nifedipine, 6 +/- 2 mm Hg; and combination therapy, 16 +/- 2 mm Hg (p less than 0.05 vs atenolol or nifedipine).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Calcium entry blockers for systemic hypertension

Calcium entry blockers appear to be effective antihypertensive agents in both young and older patients. Studies comparing diltiazem and placebo, diltiazem and propranolol, and diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide indicate that this calcium entry blocker is more effective than placebo, equally effective as the beta-adrenergic inhibitors at least in short-term studies, but not as effective in lowering systolic blood pressure (BP) when compared with hydrochlorothiazide (diastolic BP -11.5 mm Hg with diltiazem vs -12.2 mm Hg with hydrochlorothiazide; systolic BP -12.2 mm Hg with diltiazem vs -20.0 mm Hg with hydrochlorothiazide). Combination therapy with diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide proved effective in a high percentage of mono-therapy nonresponders. The most common adverse reactions to diltiazem included headaches, dizziness and edema. The exact place of calcium entry blockers in therapy as initial or step-2 therapy with a diuretic in hypertension must be determined by additional long-term experience in large numbers of patients.     

Efficacy of candesartan cilexetil alone or in combination with amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide in moderate-to-severe hypertension. UK and Israel Candesartan Investigators

This multicenter study evaluated the efficacy of candesartan cilexetil, an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist, used alone or in combination with amlodipine or in combination with amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe essential hypertension. After a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients entered a 12-week, open-label, dose-titration period. The candesartan cilexetil dose was increased from 8 to 16 mg once daily; amlodipine (5 mg once daily), hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg once daily), and additional medication were also added sequentially if necessary. Patients then entered a final 4-week, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled withdrawal period of candesartan alone. A total of 216 patients were recruited. After a 2-week run-in period on placebo tablets, mean sitting blood pressure (BP) was 175/108 mm Hg. At the end of the 12-week dose-titration/maintenance period, mean sitting BP fell to 141/88 mm Hg. In 67 patients who were randomized to placebo and had their candesartan withdrawn, there was a highly significant increase in mean systolic/diastolic BP (13/6 mm Hg) compared with those patients who continued with candesartan (ANCOVA, P:<0.0001). In conclusion, candesartan cilexetil is an effective BP-lowering drug when used alone or in combination with amlodipine or amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of moderate-to-severe essential hypertension. The drug was well tolerated throughout the investigation period.     

Antihypertensive effect of sustained-release isosorbide dinitrate for isolated systolic systemic hypertension in the elderly

A double-blind, randomized trial was performed in 40 patients, mean age (+/- standard deviation) 80 +/- 4 years, with isolated systolic systemic hypertension to evaluate the antihypertensive effect of oral sustained-release isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN), 20 to 40 mg twice daily, vs placebo. After 12 weeks of treatment, supine systolic blood pressure (BP) decreased from 192 +/- 10 to 162 +/- 12 mm Hg with ISDN (p less than 0.001) and from 189 +/- 10 to 175 +/- 15 mm Hg with placebo (p less than 0.001). On the basis of variance analysis, the decrease in systolic BP was significantly lower with ISDN (27 mm Hg) than with placebo (13 mm Hg). Similar results were observed for supine and erect systolic BP measured at 8 AM and 4 PM, 8 and 12 hours after drug intake. No significant differences in diastolic BP, heart rate or side effects occurred. After the ISDN tapering off-period (2 weeks), systolic BP increased significantly but did not change with placebo. The study provided evidence that in elderly patients with systolic hypertension, sustained-release ISDN induced a selective and sustained decrease in systolic BP, antihypertensive effect was observed 8 and 12 hours after drug administration, and no tolerance phenomenon was noted.     

Monotherapy with the calcium channel antagonist nisoldipine for systemic hypertension and comparison with diuretic drugs

A comparative, double-blind, placebo-controlled, double-dummy, randomized, crossover trial was performed in 32 hypertensive patients (initial blood pressure [BP] 165/105 +/- 3/2 mm Hg), most of them obese women, to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of the new calcium channel blocking drug nisoldipine, 10 mg once or twice daily, over 6 weeks compared with the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide-amiloride (hydrochlorothiazide, 25 mg, in combination with amiloride, 2.5 mg once or twice daily). Adequate 24-hour control of BP (supine diastolic BP less than 90 mm Hg) was achieved in 15 of 32 patients (47%) with monotherapy by 1 agent and in 23 of 32 patients (72%) when including those who responded to either agent. Both nisoldipine and the diuretic had a flat dose-response curve. The larger dose of diuretic yielded lower systolic and exercise BP values (erect and supine) than high-dose nisoldipine (p less than 0.05), with less headache (p less than 0.05). In the other 9 patients who did not respond, the combination of nisoldipine 10 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg)-amiloride (2.5 mg) was administered and yielded a response in 8 patients (overall response including monotherapy 96%). Ten patients were given nisoldipine for an additional period of 6 months, and they required an average dose of 33 mg/day for BP control. In both the 6-week and 6-month studies, nisoldipine monotherapy caused frequent subjective adverse effects. In contrast, in the 6-week study the combination of low-dose nisoldipine and low-dose diuretic gave good BP control with no adverse effects.     

Diltiazem versus propranolol in essential hypertension: responses of rest and exercise blood pressure and effects on exercise capacity

Both beta-blocking and calcium channel-blocking drugs are being used with increasing frequency as initial therapy for essential hypertension. The present study was designed to compare the antihypertensive effects of a beta-blocking drug, propranolol, with a calcium channel-blocking drug, diltiazem, at rest and during upright bicycle exercise and to determine whether exercise capacity is altered by these therapies. Twenty-one patients with uncomplicated systemic hypertension and a diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 95 to 110 mm Hg without medication were randomly assigned to propranolol or diltiazem therapy in a double-blind manner. The total daily dosages were titrated as needed, from 160 to 480 mg of propranolol (mean 371 mg) and 120 to 360 mg of diltiazem (mean 307 mg) over 12 weeks, and the titrated dose was maintained for 4 additional weeks. Both drugs significantly reduced supine BP (from 149 +/- 14/101 +/- 4 to 136 +/- 17/89 +/- 10 mm Hg with propranolol and from 157 +/- 14/103 +/- 4 to 144 +/- 13/93 +/- 8 with diltiazem. Only diltiazem reduced BP during submaximal exercise, but both agents produced significant responses during maximal exercise. Diltiazem had no effect on maximal heart rate, exercise duration or O2 uptake, whereas propranolol reduced maximal VO2 from 27 +/- 6 to 22 +/- 6 ml/min/kg (p less than 0.01) and also shortened duration of exercise. Propranolol, despite its effects on heart rate, maintained the workload VO2 relation at submaximal loads, suggesting an increased oxygen delivery. However, these adaptive mechanisms appear to be insufficient during maximal effort.     

Age and antihypertensive drugs (hydrochlorothiazide, bendroflumethiazide, nadolol and captopril)

Three double-blind Veterans Administration Cooperative Studies are reviewed to determine age-related changes in response to antihypertensive agents. In the first study 312 patients received hydrochlorothiazide titrated from 25 to 100 mg twice daily to lower diastolic blood pressure (BP) to less than 90 mm Hg. Of 121 patients aged 55 to 65 the decrease in BP averaged -21.8/-12.9 mm Hg, while in the 191 patients younger than 55 the reduction averaged -15.7/-11.5 mm Hg (p less than 0.001; p = 0.048, respectively). Both systolic and diastolic BP reductions averaged significantly more in older whites; in older blacks it was systolic BP only. An additional 298 patients received titrated doses of propranolol alone. In this group there were no significant differences in BP response between younger patients and patients aged 55 to 65 except in the subgroup of white patients older than 60, in whom the systolic reduction was significantly less than in the younger patients. In a second study of bendroflumethiazide alone and with nadolol, systolic BP decreased more in older than in younger patients but there was no age-related reduction with nadolol alone. In the third trial captopril was first given alone and later with hydrochlorothiazide. There were no age-related differences with captopril alone, but after the addition of hydrochlorothiazide there was a trend toward a greater antihypertensive response in the patients aged 55 to 69. Thus, responsiveness of older patients varies with the type of antihypertensive drug. Age appears to increase the antihypertensive response to thiazide diuretics but not to beta-adrenergic blocking drugs or to captopril.     

Failure of antihypertensive therapy with diuretic,beta-blocking and calcium channel-blocking drugs to consistently reverse left ventricular diastolic filling abnormalities

The present protocol was designed to determine whether antihypertensive therapy with hydrochlorothiazide, propranolol or diltiazem, 3 agents with different mechanisms of action and potentially different effects on myocardial function, reverses left ventricular filling abnormalities. Twelve patients with essential hypertension and no evidence of associated cardiovascular disease, either clinically or with noninvasive testing, were evaluated while taking no medication and after 2 months of treatment with these agents. All 3 drugs produced equivalent control of blood pressure (BP), reducing sitting systolic BP by a mean of 20 to 24 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 14 to 16 mm Hg. LV ejection fraction and end-diastolic volume were normal in all but 1 subject (who was excluded from the analyses of LV diastolic filling) and were not altered by drug therapy. The peak LV filling rate and the first-third filling fraction were reduced in the patients with hypertension, but neither of these indexes nor the time to peak filling rate were significantly improved for the group as a whole by any of these medications. Nine of 10 patients whose BP was controlled by diltiazem had increases in their first-third filling fraction, but this change did not reach statistical significance. Our findings suggest that abnormalities of LV diastolic filling are not consistently affected by short-term therapy in patients with chronic, previously treated systemic hypertension.     

Volume (weight) loss and blood pressure response following thiazide diuretics

Correlations were made between weight change (as an index of volume loss) and blood pressure (BP) reduction before and after hydrochlorothiazide treatment. A total of 343 patients with mild to moderate hypertension (95-114 mm Hg) received hydrochlorothiazide alone. The diuretic was titrated from 50 to 100 to 200 mg daily as needed until the diastolic BP fell below 90 mm Hg (goal BP) or side effects supervened. Of the 305 patients who completed the 10-week titration period, 65% attained goal BP. The effective dose of hydrochlorothiazide in 52% of these responders was 50 mg/day, and this was associated with weight loss averaging 1.58 kg. An additional 29% achieved goal BP with a similar degree of weight loss, but they required double the dose, or 100 mg/day. The remaining 19% of responders required significantly greater weight reductions averaging 3.14 kg to achieve goal BP, which necessitated hydrochlorothiazide, 200 mg/day. More blacks than whites attained goal BP despite similar degrees of weight loss in the two races. Plasma renin activity was initially higher in whites than in blacks and rose significantly more in blacks and whites requiring the greatest volume losses and the highest dose of hydrochlorothiazide to attain goal BP. Nonresponders had less weight loss than responders. Thus, diuretic dose requirements vary in different patients and are related either to different volume losses in response to a given dose or to different degrees of BP reduction in response to the same volume loss.     

Management of hypertension in patients with diabetes using an amlodipine-, olmesartan medoxomil-, and hydrochlorothiazide-based titration regimen

The safety and efficacy of an amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil (OM)-based titration regimen was assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. After a 2- to 3-week placebo run-in period, 207 patients received amlodipine 5 mg and were uptitrated to amlodipine/OM 5/20, 5/40, and 10/40 mg and then amlodipine/OM 10/40 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 and 25 mg in a step-wise manner at 3-week intervals if the seated blood pressure (BP) remained ≥120/70 mm Hg. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP after 12 weeks of treatment. The baseline mean ± SD seated cuff systolic/diastolic BP was 158.8 ± 13.1/89.1 ± 10.1 mm Hg and the mean ± SD 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP was 144.4 ± 11.7/81.6 ± 9.8 mm Hg. At week 12, the change from baseline in the mean ± SEM 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP was -19.9 ± 0.8/-11.2 ± 0.5 mm Hg (p<0.0001 vs baseline), and 70% of patients had achieved a 24-hour ambulatory BP target of <130/80 mm Hg. At the end of 18 weeks of active treatment in patients uptitrated to amlodipine/OM 10/40 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, the change from baseline in the mean ± SEM seated BP was -28.0 ± 1.5/-13.7 ± 1.0 mm Hg (p<0.0001 vs baseline), with 62% of patients reaching the guideline-recommended seated BP goal of <130/80 mm Hg. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 19.3% of patients. The most frequent events were peripheral edema (6%), dizziness (3%), and hypotension (2%). In conclusion, this amlodipine/OM-based titration regimen was well tolerated and effectively lowered BP throughout the 24-hour dosing interval in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.     

The JNC 7 approach compared to conventional treatment in diabetic patients with hypertension: a double-blind trial of initial monotherapy vs. combination therapy

The JNC 7 states that persons with blood pressure (BP) more than 20/10 mm Hg above goal should be started on combination drug therapy. This criterion includes patients with BP >160/100 mm Hg and diabetics with hypertension. The goal BP for persons with diabetes mellitus is <130/80 mm Hg. A randomized, double-blind trial force titrated initial combination therapy utilizing an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combination (losartan/hydrochlorothiazide [LOS/HCTZ]) compared with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (ramipril), for 8 weeks, and tested the hypothesis that combination therapy is more likely to achieve goal BP vs. monotherapy. At 4 weeks, 30.5% of LOS/HCTZ and 14.4% of ramipril recipients achieved goal diastolic BP (p<0.001). More participants achieved goal systolic BP in the ARB/HCTZ group at 4 weeks (29.8% vs. 14.4%; p<0.001). At 4 weeks, mean diastolic BP had decreased 10.2+/-7.4 mm Hg in the LOS/HCTZ group compared with 6.4+/-6.8 mm Hg in the ramipril group (p<0.001), and systolic BP had fallen 15.4+/-13.1 mm Hg in the ARB/HCTZ compared with 9.2+/-10.2 mm Hg in the ACE-inhibitor group (p<0.001). Significant differences favoring the combination were also noted at 8 weeks. Drug-related adverse experiences were 10.3% for the combination compared with 12.7% for the monotherapy group. Initial combination therapy with an ARB/HCTZ was more effective than ACE-inhibitor monotherapy in achieving BP goals in participants with diabetes with no significant differences in the incidence of adverse experiences. These observations confirm other studies of combination therapies, such as b blocker/diuretic, ACE inhibitor/diuretic, or ACE inhibitor/calcium channel blocker. The use of two medications will achieve goal BP in more patients than monotherapy. This observation is important in treatment of high-risk patients with diabetes.