Subgroup analyses to determine cardiovascular risk associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and coxibs in specific patient groups

OBJECTIVE: To explore the extent to which clinical characteristics influence the association between cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors (coxibs) and/or nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in specific patient subgroups. There is substantial concern regarding the potential cardiovascular adverse effects of selective coxibs and nonselective NSAIDs, but many patients with arthritis experience important clinical benefits from these agents. METHODS: The study population consisted of Medicare beneficiaries also eligible for a drug benefits program for older adults during the years 1999-2004. We calculated the relative risk (RR) for CVD events (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, congestive heart failure, and cardiovascular death) among users of coxibs or nonselective NSAIDs in the prior 6 months compared with nonusers. We assessed biologic interaction between these medication exposures and important patient characteristics. RESULTS: In the primary cohort, we identified 76,082 new users of coxibs, 53,014 new users of nonselective NSAIDs, and 46,558 nonusers. Compared with nonusers, the adjusted RR of CVD events for new users of each agent increased for rofecoxib (RR 1.22, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.14, 1.30) and decreased for naproxen (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67, 0.93). Several patient characteristics were found to increase the risk of CVD events among users of some agents in both the primary and secondary cohorts, including age >/=80 years, hypertension, prior MI, prior CVD, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic renal disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Rofecoxib and ibuprofen appeared to confer an increased risk in multiple patient subgroups. CONCLUSION: Many nonselective NSAIDs and coxibs are not associated with an increased risk of CVD events. However, several patient characteristics identify important subgroups that may be at an increased risk when using specific agents.     

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

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

Chronotherapy of Hypertension with Angiotensin Receptor Blockers–A Meta-Analysis of Blood Pressure Measured by Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Randomized Trials

BackgroundWe performed this meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of chronotherapy of hypertension with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs).MethodsWe searched Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane for all published randomized trials that compare antihypertensive effects of ARBs between bedtime dosing and awakening dosing. Blood pressure (BP) was measured by ambulatory BP monitoring in patients with mild or moderate essential hypertension.ResultsThe effects of ARBs on BP were assessed in 805 essential hypertensive patients included in 8 trials with a follow-up of 12 ± 3 weeks. The sleep-time systolic and diastolic BP (SBP, DBP) with bedtime dosing greatly decreased as compared with awakening dosing (weighted mean differences [WMD] for SBP WMD ?5.23 [95% confidence intervals (CI), ?7.27, ?3.20] mm Hg, p < 0.001; WMD for DBP ?2.94 [95% CI, ?4.52, ?1.36] mm Hg, p < 0.001). The reduction of daytime SBP (WMD 0.98 [95% CI, ?0.20, 2.17] mm Hg, p = 0.10), DBP (WMD 0.11 [95% CI, ?0.68, 0.89] mm Hg, p = 0.79), 24 hour SBP (WMD ?0.75 [95% CI, ?1.93, 0.42] mm Hg, p = 0.21) and DBP (WMD ?0. 77 [95% CI, ?1.55 0.01] mm Hg, p = 0.05) with bedtime dosing was similar with awakening dosing.ConclusionsBedtime dosing with ARBs is more effective in lowering sleep-time BP than awakening dosing in patients with essential hypertension, suggesting a utilization of chronotherapy of hypertension with ARBs to reduce sleep-time high BP. Larger multi-ethnic studies are needed to investigate the efficacy of chronotherapy of hypertension.     

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Relatively Selective COX-2 Inhibitors Versus Coxibs for the Prevention of NSAID-Induced Gastrointestinal Injury

Currently 2 difference classes of cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, coxibs and relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors, are available for patients requiring nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy; their gastroprotective effect is hardly directly compared.The aim of this study was to compare the gastroprotective effect of relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors with coxibs.MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (from their inception to March 2015) were searched for potential eligible studies.We included randomized controlled trials comparing coxibs (celecoxib, etoricoxib, parecoxib, and lumiracoxib), relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors (nabumetone, meloxicam, and etodolac), and nonselective NSAIDs with a study duration ≥4 weeks.Comparative effectiveness and safety data were pooled by Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were ulcer complications and symptomatic ulcer. Summary effect-size was calculated as risk ratio (RR), together with the 95% confidence interval (CI).This study included 36 trials with a total of 112,351 participants. Network meta-analyses indicated no significant difference between relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors and coxibs regarding ulcer complications (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.47–3.27), symptomatic ulcer (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.09–3.92), and endoscopic ulcer (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.37–2.96). Network meta-analyses adjusting potential influential factors (age, sex, previous ulcer disease, and follow-up time), and sensitivity analyses did not reveal any major change to the main results. Network meta-analyses suggested that relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors and coxibs were associated with comparable incidences of total adverse events (AEs) (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.93–1.31), gastrointestinal AEs (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87–1.25), total withdrawals (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.74–1.33), and gastrointestinal AE-related withdrawals (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.57–1.74).Relatively selective COX-2 inhibitors appear to be associated with similar gastroprotective effect and tolerability as coxibs. Owing to the indirectness of the comparisons, future research is required to confirm the study conclusion.     

Long-term effects of weight-reducing interventions in hypertensive patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

Weight loss is recommended in all major guidelines for antihypertensive therapy. We searched for randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of weight-reducing diets, pharmacologic substances, and invasive interventions for weight reduction on patient-relevant end points and blood pressure (BP) in patients with essential hypertension. No information on the effects on patient-relevant end points was available. Patients assigned to weight loss diets, orlistat, or sibutramine reduced their body weight more effectively than did patients in the usual care/placebo groups. Reduction of BP was higher in patients treated with weight loss diets (systolic BP [SBP]: weighted mean difference [WMD], -6.3 mm Hg; diastolic BP [DBP]: WMD, -3.4 mm Hg) or orlistat (SBP: WMD, -2.5 mm Hg; DBP: WMD, -2.0 mm Hg). Systolic BP increased with sibutramine treatment (WMD, 3.2 mm Hg). In patients with essential hypertension, therapy with a weight loss diet or orlistat resulted in reductions in body weight and BP. Although sibutramine treatment reduced body weight, it did not lower BP.     

Risk of upper gastrointestinal ulcer bleeding associated with selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors, traditional non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aspirin and combinations

BACKGROUND: The risks and benefits of coxibs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and aspirin treatment are under intense debate. OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk of peptic ulcer upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) associated with the use of coxibs, traditional NSAIDs, aspirin or combinations of these drugs in clinical practice. METHODS: A hospital-based, case-control study in the general community of patients from the National Health System in Spain. The study included 2777 consecutive patients with endoscopy-proved major UGIB because of the peptic lesions and 5532 controls matched by age, hospital and month of admission. Adjusted relative risk (adj RR) of UGIB determined by conditional logistic regression analysis is provided. RESULTS: Use of non-aspirin-NSAIDs increased the risk of UGIB (adj RR 5.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.5 to 6.2). Among non-aspirin-NSAIDs, aceclofenac (adj RR 3.1; 95% CI 2.3 to 4.2) had the lowest RR, whereas ketorolac (adj RR 14.4; 95% CI 5.2 to 39.9) had the highest. Rofecoxib treatment increased the risk of UGIB (adj RR 2.1; 95% CI 1.1 to 4.0), whereas celecoxib, paracetamol or concomitant use of a proton pump inhibitor with an NSAID presented no increased risk. Non-aspirin antiplatelet treatment (clopidogrel/ticlopidine) had a similar risk of UGIB (adj RR 2.8; 95% CI 1.9 to 4.2) to cardioprotective aspirin at a dose of 100 mg/day (adj RR 2.7; 95% CI 2.0 to 3.6) or anticoagulants (adj RR 2.8; 95% CI 2.1 to 3.7). An apparent interaction was found between low-dose aspirin and use of non-aspirin-NSAIDs, coxibs or thienopyridines, which increased further the risk of UGIB in a similar way. CONCLUSIONS: Coxib use presents a lower RR of UGIB than non-selective NSAIDs. However, when combined with low-dose aspirin, the differences between non-selective NSAIDs and coxibs tend to disappear. Treatment with either non-aspirin antiplatelet or cardioprotective aspirin has a similar risk of UGIB.     

Risk of cardiovascular events in patients receiving celecoxib: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Some nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors, have been associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) events in recent clinical trials or observational studies. To determine whether the cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib affects CV risk, the incidence of CV events was analyzed in patients treated with celecoxib, placebo, or nonselective NSAIDs in the clinical trial database for celecoxib using defined Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration end points of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and CV death. Patient data were derived from studies in osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, low back pain, and Alzheimer's disease. This meta-analysis included (1) 7,462 patients exposed to celecoxib 200 to 800 mg/day for 1,268 patient-years compared with 4,057 patients treated with placebo for 585 patient-years, and (2) 19,773 patients treated with celecoxib 200 to 800 mg/day for 5,651 patient-years compared with 13,990 patients treated with nonselective NSAIDs (diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, ketoprofen, and loxoprofen) for 4,386 patient-years. CV events were adjudicated by a 3-member expert end point committee (WBW, JSB, PBG) blinded to treatment group and study. The incidence rates of the combined CV events were not significantly different between patients treated with celecoxib and placebo or between those treated with celecoxib and nonselective NSAIDs. Event rates were similar for adjudicated and nonadjudicated data. Dose of celecoxib, the use of aspirin, or the presence of CV risk factors did not alter these results. In conclusion, these analyses failed to demonstrate an increased CV risk with celecoxib relative to placebo and demonstrated a comparable rate of CV events with celecoxib treatment compared with nonselective NSAIDs.     

The Effects of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory therapy on 24-hour blood pressure in patients with hypertension, osteoarthritis, and type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors may attenuate the efficacy of antihypertensive agents in high-risk patients. Therefore, we conducted a double-blind, randomized trial to evaluate the effects of celecoxib, rofecoxib, and naproxen on 24-hour blood pressure (BP) in patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with 200 mg of celecoxib once daily (n = 136), 25 mg of rofecoxib once daily (n = 138), or 500 mg of naproxen twice daily (n = 130) for 12 weeks. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and validated arthritis efficacy assessments were conducted at randomization and at weeks 6 and 12 of treatment. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in average 24-hour systolic BP at week 6. RESULTS: Reductions in osteoarthritis symptoms, including pain, mobility, and stiffness, were similar in all treatment groups. The mean +/- SE 24-hour systolic BP following 6 weeks of therapy was increased significantly by rofecoxib (from 130.3 +/- 1.2 to 134.5 +/- 1.4 mm Hg; P < .001) but not by celecoxib (132.0 +/- 1.3 to 131.9 +/- 1.3 mm Hg; P = .54) or naproxen (133.7 +/- 1.5 to 133.0 +/- 1.4 mm Hg; P = .74). The BP difference between rofecoxib and celecoxib was 3.78 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 1.18-6.38; P = .005); between rofecoxib and naproxen, 3.85 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 1.15-6.55; P = .005). The proportion of patients with controlled hypertension at baseline who developed ambulatory hypertension by week 6 (24-hour systolic BP>135 mm Hg) was significantly greater with rofecoxib (30%) than with celecoxib (16%) (P = .05) but not significantly greater than with naproxen (19%). CONCLUSIONS: At equally effective doses for osteoarthritis management, treatment with rofecoxib but not celecoxib or naproxen induced a significant increase in 24-hour systolic BP. However, destabilization of hypertension control occurred to some extent in all 3 treatment groups; this phenomenon was seen more often in patients treated with rofecoxib than with the other therapies.     

Effects of celecoxib and rofecoxib on blood pressure and edema in patients > or =65 years of age with systemic hypertension and osteoarthritis

Concomitant use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) specific inhibitors, with antihypertensive medication is common practice for many patients with arthritis. This study evaluated the effects of celecoxib 200 mg/day and rofecoxib 25 mg/day on blood pressure (BP) and edema in a 6-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study in patients > or =65 years of age with osteoarthritis who were treated with fixed antihypertensive regimens. One thousand ninety-two patients received study medication (celecoxib, n = 549; rofecoxib, n = 543). Significantly more patients in the rofecoxib group compared with the celecoxib group developed increased systolic BP (change >20 mm Hg plus absolute value > or =140 mm Hg) at any time point (14.9% vs 6.9%, p <0.01). Rofecoxib caused the greatest increase in systolic BP in patients receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or beta blockers, whereas those on calcium channel antagonists or diuretic monotherapy receiving either celecoxib or rofecoxib showed no significant increases in BP. Clinically significant new-onset or worsening edema associated with weight gain developed in a greater percentage of patients in the rofecoxib group (7.7%) compared with the celecoxib group (4.7%) (p <0.05). Thus, in patients with controlled hypertension on a fixed antihypertensive regimen, careful monitoring of BP is warranted after the initiation of celecoxib or rofecoxib therapy.     

Adjusted indirect comparison of celecoxib versus rofecoxib on cardiovascular risk

To compare the magnitude of celecoxib versus rofecoxib on the cardiovascular risk. We performed adjusted indirect comparison of celecoxib versus rofecoxib for cardiovascular events using two data on The Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on Vioxx (APPROVe) trial and Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib (APC) trial. Baseline characteristics of the patients and placebos were comparable in both trials, in terms of age, sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking, and hypercholesterolemia. The overall incidence of cardiovascular events was similar in both groups (rofecoxib 48/1,287 versus celecoxib 48/1,356, p = 0.79). The relative risks (RRs) of all myocardial infarction or sudden death from cardiac causes were increased in both rofecoxib and celecoxib groups [rofecoxib versus placebo; RR 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07–1.69, p = 0.03, celecoxib versus placebo; RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14–1.51, p = 0.01]. The RRs for cardiovascular events derived from the adjusted indirect comparisons of the two coxibs did not significantly differ from unity (celecoxib versus rofecoxib; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76–1.19, p = 0.67). The adjusted indirect comparison analysis shows that celecoxib and rofecoxib may have similarly effect of cardiovascular events when used for 3 years.     

The Impact of Lactotripeptides on Blood Pressure Response in Stage 1 and Stage 2 Hypertensives

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2010;12:153–159. ^©2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nearly 70 million Americans have hypertension, and approximately an equal number have prehypertension. The prevalence of both disorders increases with advancing age and obesity. Many at-risk individuals do not have controlled blood pressure (BP). Lifestyle modification for most persons is the first step in a plan to control these conditions. Non–drug treatments offer an appeal to many patients with modest BP elevation. The authors recently evaluated BP response using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and office BP monitoring of lactotripeptides dosed twice daily in 91 previously treated and treatment-naive patients with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension. In this population, daytime systolic BP, the primary efficacy end point, significantly decreased (−3.6 mm Hg; P=.013), while placebo did not affect systolic BP (0 mm Hg; P=not significant). Treatment-naive patients exhibited a more robust drop in their daytime systolic BP (−7.6 mm Hg; P=.005) compared with placebo (−3.6 mm Hg; P=not significant). Lactotripeptides may be an effective agent in the management of low-risk and low-grade hypertension and prehypertension.     

Need for common internal controls when assessing the relative efficacy of pharmacologic agents using a meta-analytic approach: case study of cyclooxygenase 2-selective inhibitors for the treatment of osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of common internal controls in a meta-analysis of the relative efficacy of cyclooxygenase 2-selective inhibitors (coxibs) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A systematic search of Medline and US Food and Drug Administration electronic databases was performed to identify randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of coxibs (etoricoxib, celecoxib, rofecoxib, valdecoxib) in patients with hip and/or knee OA. The effect size for coxibs and common active internal controls (nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], naproxen) were determined by the mean changes from baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscores as compared with placebo. RESULTS: The effect size for all coxib groups combined (0.44) indicated greater efficacy as compared with placebo, but significant heterogeneity (P < 0.0001) was observed. Rofecoxib at dosages of 12.5 mg/day and 25 mg/day and etoricoxib at a dosage of 60 mg/day had similar effect sizes (0.68 and 0.73, respectively), but these effect sizes were comparatively greater than those for both celecoxib at dosages of 200 mg/day and 100 mg twice daily or valdecoxib at a dosage of 10 mg/day (0.26 and 0.16, respectively). The effect sizes for NSAIDs or naproxen versus placebo, as determined using data from rofecoxib/etoricoxib trials, were consistently higher than the effect sizes derived from trials of celecoxib/valdecoxib. Significant heterogeneity was present in the overall effect size for NSAIDs (P = 0.007) and naproxen (P = 0.04) groups based on data available from all coxib trials. CONCLUSION: Coxibs and common active internal controls showed larger effect sizes versus placebo in the rofecoxib/etoricoxib trials than in the celecoxib/valdecoxib trials. These findings suggest systematic differences among published coxib trials and emphasize the need for direct-comparison trials. In the absence of such trials, common internal controls should be assessed when performing indirect meta-analytic comparisons.     

Effect of oral pseudoephedrine on blood pressure and heart rate: a meta-analysis

Oral pseudoephedrine is commonly used to treat symptoms of rhinitis and rhinorrhea, but its effect on blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) remains uncertain. We assessed whether pseudoephedrine causes clinically meaningful elevations in HR or BP. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for English-language, randomized placebo-controlled trials of oral pseudoephedrine treatment in adults. The primary data extracted were systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), and HR. Study quality was assessed using the methods of Jadad, and data were synthesized using a random-effects model and weighted mean differences. Twenty-four trials had extractable vital sign information (45 treatment arms; 1285 patients). Pseudoephedrine caused a small but significant increase in SBP (0.99, mm Hg; 95% CI, 0.08 to 1.90) and HR (2.83 beats/min; 95% CI, 2.0 to 3.6), with no effect on DBP (0.63 mm Hg, 95% CI, -0.10 to 1.35). The effect in patients with controlled hypertension demonstrated an SBP increase of similar magnitude (1.20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.84 mm Hg). Higher doses and immediate-release preparations were associated with greater BP increases. Studies with more women had less effect on BP or HR. Shorter duration of use was associated with greater increases in SBP and DBP.     

Divergent results using clinic and ambulatory blood pressures: report of a darusentan-resistant hypertension trial

Patients with resistant hypertension are at increased risk for cardiovascular events. The addition of new treatments to existing therapies will help achieve blood pressure (BP) goals in more resistant hypertension patients. In the current trial, 849 patients with resistant hypertension receiving ≥3 antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic, at optimized doses were randomized to the selective endothelin A receptor antagonist darusentan, placebo, or the central α-2 agonist guanfacine. The coprimary end points of the study were changes from baseline to week 14 in trough, sitting systolic BP, and diastolic BP measured in the clinic. Decreases from baseline to week 14 in systolic BP for darusentan (-15±14 mm Hg) were greater than for guanfacine (-12±13 mm Hg; P<0.05) but not greater than placebo (-14±14 mm Hg). Darusentan, however, reduced mean 24-hour systolic BP (-9±12 mm Hg) more than placebo (-2±12 mm Hg) or guanfacine (-4±12 mm Hg) after 14 weeks of treatment (P<0.001 for each comparison). The most frequent adverse event associated with darusentan was fluid retention/edema at 28% versus 12% in each of the other groups. More patients withdrew because of adverse events on darusentan as compared with placebo or guanfacine. We conclude that darusentan provided greater reduction in systolic BP in resistant hypertension patients as assessed by ambulatory BP monitoring, in spite of not meeting its coprimary end points. The results of this trial highlight the importance of ambulatory BP monitoring in the design of hypertension clinical studies.     

Addition of spironolactone in patients with resistant arterial hypertension (ASPIRANT): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

There is currently limited data on which drug should be used to improve blood pressure (BP) control in patients with resistant hypertension. This study was designed to assess the effect of the addition of 25 mg of spironolactone on BP in patients with resistant arterial hypertension. Patients with office systolic BP >140 mm Hg or diastolic BP >90 mm Hg despite treatment with at least 3 antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic, were enrolled in this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. One hundred seventeen patients were randomly assigned to receive spironolactone (n=59) or a placebo (n=58) as an add-on to their antihypertensive medication, by the method of simple randomization. Analyses were done with 111 patients (55 in the spironolactone and 56 in the placebo groups). At 8 weeks, the primary end points, a difference in mean fall of BP on daytime ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), between the groups was -5.4 mm Hg (95%CI -10.0; -0.8) for systolic BP (P=0.024) and -1.0 mm Hg (95% CI -4.0; 2.0) for diastolic BP (P=0.358). The APBM nighttime systolic, 24-hour ABPM systolic, and office systolic BP values were significantly decreased by spironolactone (difference of -8.6, -9.8, and -6.5 mm Hg; P=0.011, 0.004, and 0.011), whereas the fall of the respective diastolic BP values was not significant (-3.0, -1.0, and -2.5 mm Hg; P=0.079, 0.405, and 0.079). The adverse events in both groups were comparable. In conclusion, spironolactone is an effective drug for lowering systolic BP in patients with resistant arterial hypertension.