Time-dependent effects of imidapril administration in patients with morning hypertension measured as home blood pressure

We investigated the effect of the timing of imidapril administration in patients with morning hypertension (home blood pressure [HBP] in the morning [morning HBP] > or =135/85 mmHg). Eighty-seven patients (mean age, 61 years; 48% women) with morning hypertension each measured HBP in the early morning, before going to bed for the final five days of the observation, and during treatment. Imidapril (2.5 or 5.0 mg) was administered once every morning (n = 57) or at bedtime (n = 30) for four weeks (monotherapy: n = 30, 34%; combined with other antihypertensive drugs: n = 57, 66%). The morning (M) versus evening (E) effect (M/E ratio) and the evening versus morning effect (E/M ratio) were calculated to assess the duration of imidapril action. Morning HBP was significantly reduced (all p < 0.05) except when 2.5 mg of imidapril was administered once at bedtime. The individual M/E ratios expressed as means +/- standard deviation for systolic HBP were 0.9 +/- 0.7 and 0.7 +/- 0.7 for the morning administration of 2.5 and 5.0 mg of imidapril, respectively. The corresponding E/M ratios for bedtime administration were 0.3 +/- 0.5 and 1.0 +/- 0.7, respectively. One daily dose of imidapril taken either in the morning or at bedtime lowered morning HBP, indicating that imidapril is useful for controlling morning hypertension.     

Morning blood pressure predicts hypertensive organ damage in patients with renal diseases: effect of intensive antihypertensive therapy in patients with diabetic nephropathy

Blood pressure (BP) measured at home early in the morning (HBP) has been recognized as a useful predictor for organ damage and has been viewed as an important therapeutic target in patients with hypertension. The present study was aimed to determine whether this notion holds true in patients with progressive renal disease.The study enrolled patients with mild to moderate renal impairment. They were all directed to record self-measured HBP to evaluate the adequacy of BP control. In addition to the conventional antihypertensive therapy, intensive treatment to more efficiently reduce elevated morning HBP was applied, especially in patients with diabetic nephropathy. The results were as follows: 1) The status of BP control assessed using HBP and office/clinic BP (OBP) shows predominance of morning hypertension. The prevalence of patients with well-controlled systolic HBP was 38%, those with poorly-controlled HBP 30%, masked hypertension 20% and white coat hypertension 12%. 2) Early morning systolic HBP in diabetics was significantly higher than that in non-diabetics. However, when evaluated on systolic OBP, both groups were comparable.3)Logistic regression analysis showed that the predictive variables to explain morning hypertension (more than 130 mmHg and increased systolic HBP) were age, amount of daily urinary protein excretion and left ventricular mass index (LVMI).4)Following conventional therapy, intensive antihypertensive therapy consisting of calcium channel blockers (CCB) and/or diuretics given in the morning, and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) given in the evening, together with alpha1-blockers given at bedtime, efficaciously reduced elevated HBP in the morning. This result was associated with significant reduction in daily urinary protein excretion and in serum plasminogen-activator inhibitor (PAI-1) concentration.The present study indicates that, regardless of ongoing conventional antihypertensive therapy, the majority of patients with renal disease had morning hypertension, suggesting that these patients are at a higher risk for cardiovascular disease. For the purpose of improving morning hypertension, intensive treatments with combined CCB, ARB and alpha1-blockers could have substantial benefit on the morbidity and prognosis in patients with diabetic nephropathy.     

Detection of masked hypertension by home blood pressure measurement: is the number of measurements an important issue?

BACKGROUND: Office blood pressure (OBP) and home blood pressure (HBP) enable the identification of patients with masked hypertension. Masked hypertension is defined by normal OBP and high HBP and is known as a pejorative cardiovascular risk factor. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate in the SHEAF study the influence of the number of office or home blood pressure measurements on the classification of patients as masked hypertensives. METHODS: Patients with OBP <140/90 mmHg (mean of six values: three measurements at two separate visits, V1 and V2) and HBP >135/85 mmHg (mean of all valid measurements performed over a 4-day period) were the masked hypertensive reference group. The consistency of the classification was evaluated by using five definitions of HBP values (mean of the 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 first measurements) and two definitions of OBP values (mean of three measurements at V1 and mean of three measurements at V2). RESULTS: Among the 4939 treated hypertensives included in the SHEAF study, 463 (9.4%) were classified as masked hypertensives (reference group). By decreasing the number of office or home measurements, the prevalence of masked hypertension ranged from 8.9-12.1%. The sensitivity of the classification ranged from 94-69% therefore 6-31% of the masked hypertensives were not detected. The specificity ranged from 98-94% therefore 1-6% of patients were wrongly classified as masked hypertensives. CONCLUSION: A limited number of home and office BP measurements allowed the detection of masked hypertension with a high specificity and a low sensitivity. A sufficient number of measurements (three measurements at two visits for OBP and three measurements in the morning and in the evening over 2 days for HBP) are required to diagnose masked hypertension.     

Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockade with 80 and 160 mg valsartan in healthy, normotensive subjects

BACKGROUND: An 80-mg dose once or twice daily is the dose of valsartan frequently administered for treatment of hypertension. The target dose selected for the Val-HeFT trial in patients with chronic heart failure is 160 mg twice daily. The level and time course of angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1))-receptor blockade achieved by 160 mg valsartan have not been reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seven normotensive healthy subjects were assigned in random order to receive a single dose of placebo, 80 mg valsartan, and 160 mg valsartan at 7- to 10-day intervals. AT(1)-receptor blockade level (%) was determined by the pressure response to administration of exogenous angiotensin II. The pressure response to angiotensin II was measured at baseline and 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours after oral administration of placebo, 80 mg valsartan, and 160 mg valsartan. Eighty and 160 mg valsartan resulted in a significant and similar level of AT(1)-receptor blockade at 2 and 6 hours compared with placebo. The 160-mg dose resulted in a significantly greater level of AT(1)-receptor blockade than 80 mg at 12 and 24 hours. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 6 hours after oral administration of 80 and 160 mg valsartan the level of AT(1)-receptor blockade is similar. However, only 160 mg valsartan provides sustained AT(1)-receptor blockade over 24 hours.     

Treatment of non-dipper hypertension with bedtime administration of valsartan

BACKGROUND: Previous results have indicated that valsartan administration at bedtime, as opposed to upon wakening, may improve the diurnal: nocturnal ratio of blood pressure without loss in 24-h coverage and efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the administration time-dependent antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan in non-dipper patients. METHODS: We studied 148 non-dipper patients with grade 1-2 essential hypertension, aged 53.0+/-12.6 years, who were randomly assigned to receive valsartan (160 mg/day) as a monotherapy either on awakening or at bedtime. Blood pressure was measured every 20 min during the day and every 30 min at night for 48 consecutive hours before and after 3 months of treatment. Physical activity was simultaneously monitored every minute by wrist actigraphy to accurately calculate the diurnal and nocturnal means of blood pressure on a per subject basis. RESULTS: The significant blood pressure reduction after 3 months of valsartan (P<0.001) was similar for both treatment times (13.1 and 8.5 mmHg reduction in the 24-h mean of systolic and diastolic blood pressure with morning administration; 14.7 and 10.3 mmHg with bedtime administration; P>0.126 for treatment-time effect). The diurnal: nocturnal ratio of blood pressure was significantly increased only when valsartan was administered before bedtime, which resulted in 75% of the patients in this group reverting to dippers, a significant increase in the percentage of patients with controlled blood pressure over 24 h, and a reduction in urinary albumin excretion. CONCLUSIONS: In non-dipper hypertensive patients, dosing time with valsartan should be chosen at bedtime, for improved efficacy during the nocturnal resting hours, as well as the potential associated reduction in cardiovascular risk.     

The bedtime administration of doxazosin controls morning hypertension and albuminuria in patients with type-2 diabetes: evaluation using home-based blood pressure measurements

The control of high blood pressure (BP) after awakening in the morning (morning hypertension) as determined by home BP (HBP), as well as BP control throughout the day, may prevent diabetic vascular complications. We examined the effect of an alpha-adrenergic blocker (doxazosin) on BP measurements taken by HBP after awakening and during clinic visits (CBP) in 50 patients with type-2 diabetes and morning hypertension. We evaluated the urinary albumin excretion rate as an indicator of nephropathy. Doxazosin was taken orally once at bedtime for 1 to 3 months. The mean (+/- SD) dose was 2.9 +/- 2.1 mg/day (1 to 8 mg/day). The BP was measured monthly at the clinic during the day and at home after awakening in the morning. In this short-term trial (2.8 +/- 0.4 months), the systolic HBP decreased significantly from 164 +/- 17 mmHg before treatment to 146 +/- 19 mmHg after treatment, and the diastolic HBP decreased significantly from 85 +/- 14 mmHg before treatment to 80 +/- 9 mmHg after treatment. The systolic, but not the diastolic CBP, decreased significantly after treatment. There was no significant difference in the systolic or diastolic values between the HBP and the CBP after treatment. The percentage change in the systolic HBP after treatment was three times greater than for the systolic CBP. The median (interquartile) urinary albumin excretion rate decreased significantly (P < 0.001) from 62 (25-203) mg/g creatinine before treatment to 19 (9-76) mg/g creatinine after treatment. On multiple regression analysis, the decrease in the systolic HBP with treatment positively correlated with the reduction in urinary excretion of albumin. The control of morning hypertension reduced the albuminuria found in both untreated and treated hypertensive patients with type-2 diabetes. Bedtime administration of doxazosin appears to be safe and effective in reducing morning hypertension as measured by HBP. This finding also demonstrates that HBP taken in the morning has a stronger predictive power for the albuminuria level than does CBP.     

Comparison of antihypertensive effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a calcium antagonist and a diuretic in patients with hypertension not controlled by angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy

OBJECTIVE: To compare the additional antihypertensive effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist and a diuretic in patients whose hypertension is not controlled by full-dose angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy. DESIGN AND METHODS: Individuals with an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) that was not controlled by valsartan 160 mg once daily were allocated randomly to two groups: those in group A (n = 35) were assigned randomly to treatment with benazepril 20 mg once daily or chlorthalidone 12.5 mg once daily, whereas patients in group B (n = 29) were assigned randomly to benazepril 20 mg once daily or amlodipine 5 mg once daily. All individuals continued to receive background valsartan 160 mg once daily. After 5 weeks, patients crossed over to the alternative valsartan-based combination treatment of each group for a second 5-week period. Twenty-four-hour ABP monitoring was performed before the random allocation to groups and at the end of each randomized combination pharmacotherapy period. RESULTS: Sixty-four individuals completed the study: 32 men and 32 women (mean +/- SD age 48.2 +/- 7.9 years, average 24-h ABP on valsartan monotherapy 143.4 +/- 12.6/87.7 +/- 7.8 mmHg). Significant additional antihypertensive effects on the average 24-h ABP were obtained with benazepril (8.6 +/- 8.8/6.3 +/- 6.7 mmHg), amlodipine (15.2 +/- 12.9/9.9 +/- 6.8 mmHg) and chlorthalidone (13.5 +/- 11.6/9.5 +/- 7.7 mmHg) (P < 0.001 for all additional antihypertensive effects). The additional effects of amlodipine and chlorthalidone added to valsartan were approximately 6/3.5 mmHg (P < 0.05) greater than that of benazepril. CONCLUSIONS: In patients in whom hypertension was not controlled by full-dose ARB monotherapy, a diuretic, a calcium antagonist or an ACE inhibitor provided significant additional antihypertensive effect. The antihypertensive effects of the ARB-diuretic and the ARB-calcium antagonist combinations were superior to that of the ARB-ACE inhibitor combination.     

An ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study of the comparative antihypertensive efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists,irbesartan and valsartan

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to compare the change from baseline in mean diastolic ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) at 24 h post dose (trough measurement) after 8 weeks of treatment with irbesartan or valsartan in subjects with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Secondary objectives included comparing the mean changes from baseline in systolic ABP at trough; 24-h ABP; morning and night-time ABP; self-measured systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP); and office-measured SBP and DBP at trough. DESIGN: After a 3-week, single blind, placebo lead-in period, 426 subjects were randomized to receive either irbesartan 150 mg or valsartan 80 mg for 8 weeks. METHODS: Ambulatory blood pressure measurements were obtained at baseline and at week 8. Self-measured morning and evening DBP and SBP readings were obtained at home over a 7-day period at baseline and at week 8. Office-measured seated DBP and SBP measurements were obtained at trough, at baseline, and at week 8. RESULTS: Irbesartan demonstrated significantly greater reductions than valsartan for mean change from baseline in diastolic ABP at trough (-6.73 versus -4.84 mmHg, respectively; P = 0.035). Irbesartan produced significantly greater reductions than valsartan for mean systolic ABP at trough (-11.62 versus -7.5 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and for mean 24-h diastolic ABP (-6.38 versus -4.82 mmHg, respectively; P = 0.023) and systolic ABP (-10.24 versus -7.76 mmHg; P < 0.01). Irbesartan also produced significantly greater reductions than valsartan for office-measured seated DBP (-10.46 versus 7.28 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and SBP (-16.23 versus -9.96 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and for self-measured morning DBP (-6.28 versus -3.75 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and SBP (-10.21 versus -6.97 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01). Both drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Irbesartan was more effective than valsartan in reducing DBP and SBP at trough and in providing greater overall 24-h blood pressure-lowering efficacy.     

Effects of valsartan and amlodipine on home blood pressure and cardiovascular events in Japanese hypertensive patients: a subanalysis of the VART

The Valsartan Amlodipine Randomized Trial (VART) was performed to compare the beneficial effects of valsartan and amlodipine on cardiovascular events in Japanese hypertensive patients. In this subanalysis of the VART, we assessed the relationship between home blood pressure (HBP) levels and cardiovascular events in the enrolled patients. We enrolled 1021 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension in the VART. The participants were allocated randomly to either the valsartan group or the amlodipine group. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death, sudden death, cerebrovascular events, cardiac events, vascular events and renal events. A total of 621 patients (valsartan group: 305 and amlodipine group: 316) completed the measurements of HBP (morning and evening) throughout the trial. Both the agents evenly and significantly lowered morning HBP and evening HBP throughout the trial. There was no significant difference in the primary end point between the two groups. However, we observed significant decreases in the left ventricular mass index and urinary albumin to creatinine ratio in the valsartan group but not in the amlodipine group. There were no significant differences in HBP levels and the main outcome of the cardiovascular events between the valsartan and amlodipine groups. However, in the valsartan group, significant improvements in left ventricular hypertrophy and microalbuminuria were observed.     

Automated office blood pressure measurements in primary care are misleading in more than one third of treated hypertensives: The VALENTINE-Greece Home Blood Pressure Monitoring study

BackgroundThis study assessed the diagnostic reliability of automated office blood pressure (OBP) measurements in treated hypertensive patients in primary care by evaluating the prevalence of white coat hypertension (WCH) and masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) phenomena.MethodsPrimary care physicians, nationwide in Greece, assessed consecutive hypertensive patients on stable treatment using OBP (1 visit, triplicate measurements) and home blood pressure (HBP) measurements (7 days, duplicate morning and evening measurements). All measurements were performed using validated automated devices with bluetooth capacity (Omron M7 Intelli-IT). Uncontrolled OBP was defined as ≥140/90 mmHg, and uncontrolled HBP was defined as ≥135/85 mmHg.ResultsA total of 790 patients recruited by 135 doctors were analyzed (age: 64.5 ± 14.4 years, diabetics: 21.4%, smokers: 20.6%, and average number of antihypertensive drugs: 1.6 ± 0.8). OBP (137.5 ± 9.4/84.3 ± 7.7 mmHg, systolic/diastolic) was higher than HBP (130.6 ± 11.2/79.9 ± 8 mmHg; difference 6.9 ± 11.6/4.4 ± 7.6 mmHg, p < 0.001). WCH phenomenon (high OBP with low HBP) was observed in 22.7% of the patients, MUCH (low OBP with high HBP) in 15.8%, uncontrolled hypertension (high OBP with high HBP) in 29.9%, and controlled hypertension (low OBP with low HBP) in 31.6%. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, WCH was determined by stage-1 systolic hypertension (odds ratio [OR] 8.6, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 5.7, 13.1) and female gender (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1, 2.4), whereas MUCH was determined by high-normal systolic OBP (OR 6.2, 95% CI 3.8, 10.1) and male gender (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2, 3.1).ConclusionsIn primary care, automated OBP measurements are misleading in approximately 40% of treated hypertensive patients. HBP monitoring is mandatory to avoid overtreatment of subjects with WCH phenomenon and prevent undertreatment and subsequent excess cardiovascular disease in MUCH.     

Renoprotective effects of low-dose valsartan in type 2 diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy

It is unknown whether the angiotensin receptor antagonist valsartan exerts a renoprotective effect on patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy independent of its hypotensive effects. Forty patients with type 2 diabetes participated in this study. All patients received valsartan 40 mg, a dose with no clinical effect on blood pressure levels. Blood pressure, urinary albumin excretion (UAE), and creatinine clearance were determined at baseline and at the end of the 6-month treatment period. Antihypertensive and/or antidiabetic drugs, including insulin, were permitted throughout the study. After 6 months of valsartan therapy, mean UAE decreased from 86.8 +/- 196 to 46.9 +/- 97 microg/min (n = 37). In addition, a significant decrease was observed in the UAE of the subgroup of patients displaying diabetic nephropathy (UAE > 20 microg/min, n = 14), from 219.4 +/- 275 to 102.7 +/- 141 microg/min, (P < 0.01). Changes in UAE for valsartan correlated significantly with UAE at baseline (r = -0.935, P < 0.0001). Serum creatinine levels and creatinine clearance remained stable before and after treatment with valsartan. No significant differences were observed between pre- and post-treatment body mass index, glycosylated hemoglobin, or systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In type 2 diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy, 6 months of treatment with low dose valsartan, an angiotensin-II receptor antagonist, thus reduced UAE with no reduction in systemic blood pressure. The drug may be safely administered in this subset of type 2 diabetic patients. The long-term benefits in terms of risk reduction must still be evaluated in further trials.     

A prospective, randomized, open-label trial comparing telmisartan 80 mg with valsartan 80 mg in patients with mild to moderate hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

OBJECTIVE: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 80 mg with valsartan 80 mg throughout a 24 h dosing interval. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point, parallel group study. Treatment efficacy was compared using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), cuff sphygmomanometry and calculated responder rates. Tolerability was assessed by physical examination, laboratory parameters, 12-lead electrocardiogram, blood pressure and heart rate monitoring, and evaluation of adverse events. SETTING: Thirty-five centres in the United States. PATIENTS: Four hundred and twenty-six patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension entered the study. Ninety-two per cent (n=393) completed the study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent a four-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period before being randomly assigned to once-daily oral telmisartan 80 mg (n=214) or valsartan 80 mg (n=212) for an eight-week, open-label treatment period. RESULTS: Treatment with telmisartan was associated with a significantly greater mean reduction from baseline in the last 6 h ABPM mean for diastolic blood pressure compared with the valsartan-treated group (-7.5+/-0.6 mmHg versus -5.2+/-0.6 mmHg, respectively, P<0.01). Secondary analyses showed significantly greater efficacy with telmisartan 80 mg than with valsartan 80 mg, including greater mean reductions from baseline of ABPM (systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure) during the daytime (06:00 to 21:59) and morning (06:00 to11:59) hours, and larger decreases in trough cuff blood pressure (P<0.01). Both treatments showed placebo-like tolerability profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan 80 mg once daily was superior to valsartan 80 mg once daily in reducing diastolic blood pressure during the last 6 h of the 24 h dosing interval. These results may be due to telmisartan's longer plasma half-life or to a higher potency compared with valsartan, such that a higher dose of valsartan may produce effects similar to those of 80 mg telmisartan. These data confirm the long duration of action of telmisartan with consistent and sustained control of blood pressure over 24 h and during the last 6 h of the dosing interval. Both treatments were well tolerated; the adverse event data confirmed the excellent tolerability profiles of telmisartan and valsartan that have been reported previously.     

The Bedtime Administration of Doxazosin Controls Morning Hypertension and Albuminuria in Patients with Type-2 Diabetes: Evaluation Using Home-Based Blood Pressure Measurements

The control of high blood pressure (BP) after awakening in the morning (morning hypertension) as determined by home BP (HBP), as well as BP control throughout the day, may prevent diabetic vascular complications. We examined the effect of an α-adrenergic blocker (doxazosin) on BP measurements taken by HBP after awakening and during clinic visits (CBP) in 50 patients with type-2 diabetes and morning hypertension. We evaluated the urinary albumin excretion rate as an indicator of nephropathy. Doxazosin was taken orally once at bedtime for 1 to 3 months. The mean (± SD) dose was 2.9 ± 2.1 mg/day (1 to 8 mg/day). The BP was measured monthly at the clinic during the day and at home after awakening in the morning. In this short-term trial (2.8 ± 0.4 months), the systolic HBP decreased significantly from 164 ± 17 mmHg before treatment to 146 ± 19 mmHg after treatment, and the diastolic HBP decreased significantly from 85 ± 14 mmHg before treatment to 80 ± 9 mmHg after treatment. The systolic, but not the diastolic CBP, decreased significantly after treatment. There was no significant difference in the systolic or diastolic values between the HBP and the CBP after treatment. The percentage change in the systolic HBP after treatment was three times greater than for the systolic CBP. The median (interquartile) urinary albumin excretion rate decreased significantly (P < 0.001) from 62 (25–203) mg/g creatinine before treatment to 19 (9–76) mg/g creatinine after treatment. On multiple regression analysis, the decrease in the systolic HBP with treatment positively correlated with the reduction in urinary excretion of albumin. The control of morning hypertension reduced the albuminuria found in both untreated and treated hypertensive patients with type-2 diabetes. Bedtime administration of doxazosin appears to be safe and effective in reducing morning hypertension as measured by HBP. This finding also demonstrates that HBP taken in the morning has a stronger predictive power for the albuminuria level than does CBP.     

Efficacy and duration of action of the four selective angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor blockers, losartan, candesartan, valsartan and telmisartan, in patients with essential hypertension determined by home blood pressure measurements

Our objective was to compare the efficacy and duration of action of 4 angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs)--losartan (25-100 mg), candesartan (2-12 mg), valsartan (40-80 mg), and telmisartan (10-40 mg)-in patients with essential hypertension using self-measurement of blood pressure at home (home BP) and to examine the differential effect of the four ARBs on home pulse pressure (home PP). After a 2-week run-in period, each of the 4 ARBs was assigned to subjects who were diagnosed as having hypertension on the basis of home BP and who were over 30 years old. The subjects were asked to take the ARB once daily in the morning and to measure home BP once in the evening and in the morning. We compared the efficacy of each ARB on home BP and home PP and assessed the duration of the BP-lowering effect using the morning effect versus evening effect ratio (M/E ratio). The antihypertensive effects of telmisartan on home systolic BP (SBP) both in the evening and in the morning and on home diastolic BP (DBP) in the morning were significantly greater than those of losartan. The effect of each ARB on home BP in the morning and in the evening was expressed as a ratio (M/E ratio). The M/E ratios of SBP/DBP in patients treated with losartan, candesartan, valsartan, and telmisartan were 0.49/0.16, 0.69/1.01, 0.82/0.88, and 0.88/0.88, respectively. The home PP-lowering effect was greater for valsartan and telmisartan than for losartan and candesartan in the morning. Among the 4 ARBs, the duration of the BP-lowering effect of losartan did not persist throughout 24 hr. The effects of the other 3 ARBs, in particular telmisartan, persisted over 24 hr when they were administered once daily in the morning. In addition, the duration of the PP-lowering effect was similar to that of the BP-lowering effect. Such long-acting property of several ARBs is essential for the modern antihypertensive treatment, and home BP measurements are useful for determining the duration of action of antihypertensive drugs. Losartan, 25 mg a day, which is usually used as an initial dose in Japan, is apparently insufficient to obtain adequate antihypertensive effect and sufficient duration of action.     

奥美沙坦酯与缬沙坦对原发性高血压患者血压晨峰的影响

目的比较奥美沙坦酯和缬沙坦治疗高血压患者血压晨峰的疗效。方法选择我院76例原发性高血压患者随机分为2组,分别接受奥美沙坦酯20-40mg／d或缬沙坦80-160mg／d治疗,共8周,观察服药前及服药后清晨血压变化。结果奥美沙坦酯组和缬沙坦组治疗后晨峰血压均有明显下降,与治疗前比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。奥美沙坦酯组和缬沙坦组晨峰血压下降的幅度分别为：／kSBP（10．22±0．35）mmHg、（5．63±0．21）mmHg;△DBP（7．71±0．29）mmHg、（3．55±0．14）mmHg,奥美沙坦酯组血压晨峰下降幅度高于缬沙坦组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论奥美沙坦酯和缬沙坦均可以有效地控制原发性高血压患者血压晨蜂现象,奥美沙坦酯优于缬沙坦。     

Effects of nighttime alcohol intake on evening and next morning home blood pressure in Japanese normotensives

Home blood pressure (HBP) is usually measured in the morning and evening, but the evening HBP tends to be influenced by an individual's behavior pattern, such as bathing and drinking, which are often seen in the Japanese. In this study, in order to elucidate the influence of nighttime drinking on the evening and next morning HBP and heart rate (HR), HBP measurement was performed in Japanese normotensives under conditions in which the influence of bathing was minimized. Among 700 registered volunteers, 245 normotensives (189 male, 56 female, mean age; 35.8 +/- 0.5 years old) whose data consisted of a combination of drinking and non-drinking on workdays were selected. A semi-automatic device was lent to all participants, and they were asked to perform triplicate morning and evening measurements on seven consecutive days between October 16, 2002, and November 13, 2002. The differences in evening HBP and HR between the drinking and non-drinking days were calculated, as were the differences in the next morning HBP and HR. Only data of evening HBP measured at least 30 min after bathing were accepted. Evening SBP and DBP on drinking days were significantly lower (2.5 +/- 0.5 mmHg, 3.1 +/- 0.5 mmHg) than those on non-drinking days. On the other hand, evening HR on drinking days was significantly higher (7.7 +/- 0.8 b.p.m.) than that on non-drinking days. Although there was no difference in morning SBP after days with and without drinking, morning DBP the day after drinking was slightly (0.8 +/- 0.3 mmHg) but significantly lower than that the day after non-drinking. Morning HR the day after drinking was significantly higher (2.4 +/- 0.4 b.p.m.) than that after non-drinking. Because nighttime drinking influenced the evening HBP even in normotensives, it was suggested that morning HBP could give more stable values than evening HBP in Japanese people.     

Self-measured systolic blood pressure in the morning is a strong indicator of decline of renal function in hypertensive patients with non-diabetic chronic renal insufficiency

While blood pressure is a recognized major determinant of renal function deterioration, the role of self blood pressure measurement (BPM) in predicting the loss of renal function in hypertensive patients with chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) has not been adequately addressed. One hundred and thirteen patients (F/M: 46/67; 56 +/- 1 years) with CRI (mean serum creatinine: 1.87 +/- 0.08; range: 1.4 to 3.5 mg/dl; average urinary protein excretion: 1.2 +/- 0.2 g/24 hrs.) were followed for 3 years. The record of renal biopsy revealed that 74 patients had IgA nephropathy, 16 had chronic glomerulonephritis, and 6 had membranous nephropathy, while 17, unbiopsied patients had underlying renal disease of unknown origin. Self BPM were made at regular intervals throughout the course of the study. All recorded blood pressures were included in a stepwise multiple regression analysis in which the decline in GFR per year was the dependent variable. Patients were primarily treated with a combination of amlodipine (5 to 20 mg daily), a calcium antagonist, and benazepril (2.5 to 5 mg daily), an ACE inhibitor in an effort to reduce their blood pressure at the office to < 130/85 mmHg. The simple correlation between blood pressures (i.e., office, home morning and home evening) and the decline in GFR were all statistically significant. The correlation coefficients of determination for this model were as follows: r = 0.64 for home morning SBP; 0.43 for office SBP; 0.39 for office DBP; and 0.38 for home morning DBP. The level of urinary protein excretion did not correlate with the decline in GFR. These data suggest that self BPM improves prognostic ability in hypertensive patients with CRI.     

Blood pressure reduction in the morning yields beneficial effects on progression of chronic renal insufficiency with regression of left ventricular hypertrophy

Self-monitoring values of blood pressure may better reflect the average long-term blood pressure value than sporadic measurements in the physician's office and be more useful for blood pressure control. In the present study, we compared the results of self-monitoring of blood pressure values, especially in the morning, with office blood pressure, and related these to progression of chronic renal insufficiency and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Thirty-four patients were selected from 316 subjects with chronic renal insufficiency (average serum creatinine 1.72 +/- 0.15 mg/dl, mean age 52.6 +/- 3.5 yrs) in accordance with the following criteria (1) office blood pressure was less than 140/90 mmHg, (2) blood pressure was controlled with amlodipine (5-20 mg/day) combined with benazepril (2.5 mg/day), (3) morning blood pressure was greater than 150/90 mmHg at 6-9 AM and (4) LVH had been determined by echocardiography (posterior wall thickness; PWT > or = 12 mm). The patients were assigned to 2 groups at random and were given: (1) guanabenz (GB; 2-8 mg at I I PM, n = 17) or (2) placebo (n = 17). Two years later, the average blood pressure of both groups as measured in the office was not significantly different: however, BP in the morning was significantly reduced from 158 +/- 6 to 134 +/- 4 mmHg in GB treated group (P< 0.001). In 14 of 17 patients in GB treated group, LVH resolved and there was only mild progression of nephropathy (serum creatinine: 1.69 +/- 0.18 to 1.81 +/- 0.19 mg/dl). In 12 of 14 patients in placebo group, whose morning blood pressure remained at greater than 150/90 mmHg, LVH was retained and there was moderate progression of nephropathy (serum creatinine: 1.73 +/- 0.14 to 2.62 +/- 0.50mg/dl). From these results, it is suggested that antihypertensive treatment with combination therapy based on self-monitoring BP is cardio-renoprotective in patients with chronic renal insufficiency and LVH.     

Effect of indomethacin on the antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan and lisinopril: a multicentre study

OBJECTIVE : To compare the effect on antihypertensive efficacy produced by the addition of indomethacin to the angiotensin II (Ang II) antagonist, valsartan, or to the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, lisinopril, in hypertensive patients with chronic osteoarthritis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS : One hundred and twenty-eight patients (52 men and 76 women) aged 25-82 years (mean age 55.7 years), with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > 100 mmHg at the end of a 2-week placebo washout period were allocated randomly to groups to receive valsartan (80-160 mg once daily) or lisinopril (10-20 mg once daily). At the end of 10 weeks of treatment, patients with DBP < 90 mmHg, while continuing to receive valsartan or lisinopril treatment, were allocated randomly to groups to receive either indomethacin (50 mg three times a day) or the corresponding placebo for 2 weeks, with a 1-week washout period between the two treatments, according to a double-blind, crossover design. After the initial washout period, patients were examined at the end of the 4th, 8th and 10th weeks of randomized treatment with valsartan and lisinopril, at the end of the first crossover period and then at the beginning and at the end of the second crossover period. At each visit, sitting and standing blood pressure were measured by standard mercury sphygmomanometer. RESULTS : The addition of indomethacin blunted the blood pressure-decreasing effect of both antihypertensive drugs. Although indomethacin produced greater increases in both systolic and DBP values in the lisinopril-treated patients (5.45/3.22 mmHg) than in the valsartan-treated ones (2.12/1.87 mmHg), no significant difference between the two drugs was found. CONCLUSIONS : From a theoretical standpoint, these findings suggest that prostaglandins may play a part in the antihypertensive action of Ang II antagonists. From a practical standpoint, hypertensive patients treated with valsartan or with lisinopril should be monitored to detect changes in blood pressure control while receiving indomethacin.     

Safety of the combination of valsartan and benazepril in patients with chronic renal disease. European Group for the Investigation of Valsartan in Chronic Renal Disease

OBJECTIVE: Several experimental and clinical studies indicate that the renin system may play a pivotal role in progressing renal disease. The combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and an angiotensin receptor blocker could provide a higher degree of blockade of the renin-angiotensin system than either agent alone. Such enhanced suppression might be of benefit for patients exhibiting a progressive decline in renal function because of chronic renal disease. METHODS: A pilot multinational, multicentre, randomized, active-controlled, parallel group open-label study has been conducted in a group of patients with progressive chronic renal failure (creatinine clearance 20-45 ml/min) either with or without proteinuria and hypertension. The primary aim of the study was to investigate the safety and tolerability of the combination of valsartan and benazepril. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: group 1 received valsartan 160 mg once daily (n = 22); group 2 received valsartan 80 mg once daily plus benazepril 5 or 10 mg once daily (n = 42); group 3 received valsartan 160 mg once daily plus benazepril 5 or 10 mg once daily (n = 44). The study lasted for 5 weeks, and in groups 2 and 3 benazepril was added on top of valsartan after the first week of therapy with the angiotensin receptor blocker. RESULTS: Serum creatinine increased in all three groups (mean change within a group: 11 micromol/l in group 1, P= 0.045; 9 micromol/l in group 2, P= 0.030; 15 micromol/l in group 3, P= 0.0006). Serum potassium also increased in all three groups of patients (mean change within a group: 0.28 mmol/l in group 1, P= 0.28; 0.48 mmol/l in group 2, P= 0.0008; 0.36 mmol/l in group 3, P= 0.02). After 5 weeks of treatment, the largest decrease in blood pressure was observed in group 3 (the mean change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) and seated systolic blood pressure (SSBP), respectively, were: -2.0 and -11.5 mmHg in group 1; -7.6 and -15.4 mmHg in group 2; -12.6 and -21.6 mmHg in group 3). In addition, both combination treatments resulted in the reduction of proteinuria. The total number of patients with adverse experiences were 10 (45.5%), 14 (33.3%) and 11 (25%) in groups 1,2 and 3, respectively. In six patients (5.6%) therapy was discontinued as a result of adverse experiences. Only one patient in each of the combined therapy groups withdrew from the study because of hyperkalaemia and no patients were forced to withdraw because of an increase in serum creatinine, acute renal failure or hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that short-term combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and an angiotensin receptor blocker is safe and well tolerated in patients with moderate chronic renal failure.