The cardiovascular effects of eplerenone, a selective aldosterone-receptor antagonist

BACKGROUND: The role of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the pathophysiology and treatment of hypertension and heart failure has been extensively studied. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II-receptor blockers have been shown to effectively reduce blood pressure, protect the kidney, and reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure. Therefore, there is increased interest in the effects of aldosterone and the use of aldosterone-receptor antagonists in the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Eplerenone is the first selective aldosterone-receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of hypertension and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). OBJECTIVE: The goal of this article was to review the pharmacologic properties, clinical efficacy, and tolerability of eplerenone in the treatment of hypertension, LV dysfunction, and proteinuria. METHODS: Relevant English-language articles were identified through searches of MEDLINE (1966-May 2003), Current Contents, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-May 2003) using the terms hypertension, heart failure, eplerenone, aldosterone, and aldosterone antagonist. Other pertinent publications were identified from the reference lists of the identified articles. Information was also obtained from abstracts presented at national meetings and data on file with the manufacturer. RESULTS: In clinical trials, eplerenone alone and in combination with renin-angiotensin blockade significantly reduced both systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared with placebo (P < 0.05 to P < 0.001). In EPHESUS (Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study), the addition eplerenone to optimal medical therapy reduced morbidity and mortality in patients with AMI and LV dysfunction, although the incidence of serious hyperkalemia was also significantly greater. In comparisons with spironolactone, eplerenone was associated with a lower incidence of gynecomastia and other sex hormone-related adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Either alone or in combination with other antihypertensive agents, eplerenone appears to be effective for the treatment of hypertension. Morbidity and mortality were reduced when eplerenone was added to standard therapy for LV dysfunction complicating AMI. The use of eplerenone for hypertension or heart failure may be limited in patients at risk for hyperkalemia.     

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of losartan alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide in adult African Americans with mild to moderate hypertension

BACKGROUND: African Americans with hypertension, particularly those with more severe blood pressure elevations, are generally less responsive to monotherapy from any antihypertensive class. These patients usually require treatment with drugs from > or = 2 antihypertensive classes to achieve adequate blood pressure control. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of losartan alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in African American adults with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: In this 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, African American patients were randomized in a 3:3:1 ratio to I of 3 treatment groups: placebo, losartan monotherapy (50 to 150 mg), or losartan plus HCTZ (50/0 to 50/12.5 to 100/25 mg). Doses were titrated at weeks 4 and 8 if sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) was > or = 90 mm Hg. Safety was assessed by determining the incidence of clinical and laboratory Adverse events and evaluating mean changes in pulse, body weight, electrocardiographic parameters, and laboratory test results. RESULTS: A total of 440 patients were randomized-188 to placebo, 193 to losartan monotherapy, and 59 to losartan/HCTZ; 391 completed the study. At week 12, the response rate with losartan monotherapy was 45.8%, with a significant (P < or = 0.01) lowering in mean SiDBP by 6.6 mm Hg compared with placebo; the response rate with placebo was 27.2%, with a mean SiDBP reduction of 3.9 mm Hg. Sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) was significantly lowered with losartan monotherapy, by 6.4 mm Hg, compared with placebo (reduction of 2.3 mm Hg). The response rate with losartan/ HCTZ was 62.7%, with reductions in SiSBP and SiDBP of 16.8 mm Hg and 10.8 mm Hg, respectively (P < or = 0.01 vs placebo and losartan monotherapy). The incidence of clinical adverse events was comparable in the 3 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that in African American patients, losartan monotherapy was significantly more effective than placebo in lowering SiSBP and SiDBP. Moreover, the losartan/ HCTZ combination regimen resulted in significant and clinically meaningful additional reductions in SiSBP and SiDBP compared with losartan monotherapy or placebo. Losartan monotherapy and the losartan/HCTZ regimens were generally as well tolerated as placebo.     

Eplerenone--a novel selective aldosterone blocker

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and safety of eplerenone, a new selective aldosterone blocker. DATA SOURCES: Primary literature and review articles were obtained via MEDLINE search (1966-April 2002). Additional studies and abstracts were identified from the bibliographies of reviewed literature. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies and review articles related to eplerenone, aldosterone, aldosterone antagonist, and spironolactone were reviewed. Data pertinent to this article were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eplerenone is a selective aldosterone blocker. Recent data have demonstrated the deleterious effects of aldosterone in several chronic disease states including hypertension and heart failure. Animal studies using eplerenone have shown a positive role for aldosterone antagonism in the treatment of hypertension, heart failure, myocardial infarction, renal disease, and atherosclerosis. In humans, eplerenone appears to be effective for the treatment of hypertension. An ongoing study will examine the effect of eplerenone for heart failure. To date, the incidence of adverse effects with eplerenone has been slightly lower than with spironolactone. CONCLUSIONS: Eplerenone appears to be a promising drug in a new class of agents called selective aldosterone blockers. The drug may be approved for treatment of hypertension in 2002. Additional studies are ongoing that may provide information on other clinical uses for this medication.     

Eplerenone: a selective aldosterone receptor antagonist for patients with heart failure

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, safety, and clinical use of eplerenone in heart failure (HF). DATA SOURCES: English-language MEDLINE searches were performed from 1966 to May 2004. Key words included eplerenone, aldosterone receptor antagonist, heart failure, myocardial infarction, left-ventricular dysfunction, and cost-effectiveness. Additional references were identified from bibliographies of selected articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Human trials evaluating the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of aldosterone receptor antagonists in HF were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eplerenone is the first selective aldosterone receptor antagonist. The drug is indicated to improve the survival of stable patients with left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction <40%) and clinical evidence of HF following acute myocardial infarction. Efficacy and safety in this population have been demonstrated in a large, randomized clinical trial. Eplerenone is associated with severe and sometimes life-threatening hyperkalemia. Patients with reduced renal function and diabetes, as well as those on other drugs that increase potassium levels, are at highest risk. Eplerenone is metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system and may interact with drugs that interfere with this system. A major advantage of eplerenone over the nonselective aldosterone receptor antagonist spironolactone is lack of binding to progesterone and androgen receptors, which is associated with drug-induced gynecomastia, breast pain, and impotence. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of eplerenone to traditional HF therapy has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients who develop left-ventricular dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction. Eplerenone's selectivity reduces sex hormone-related adverse effects. Despite these benefits, the overall cost-effectiveness has yet to be determined.     

New treatment option for heart failure patients: eplerenone

Aldosterone plays an important role in the harmful cardiac remodeling process and pathophysiology of heart failure after a myocardial infarction. Until recently, spironolactone (Aldactone) was the only pharmacologic agent available to directly block the deleterious effects of aldosterone. The use of spironolactone is complicated by its antiprogesterone and antiandrogen side effects, such as gynecomastia and menstrual irregularities. Eplerenone (Inspra), a member of a new class of drugs called selective aldosterone receptor antagonists, was recently approved for the treatment of both hypertension and post-myocardial infarction heart failure and appears to be devoid of the antiprogesterone and antiandrogen effects. In a trial in patients with heart failure following a myocardial infarction, eplerenone treatment significantly reduced mortality and morbidity compared to placebo. Eplerenone may be considered as part of the therapeutic plan in patients who have suffered a myocardial infarction and demonstrate evidence of heart failure.     

Comparison of 26-week efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan and atenolol, in combination with hydrochlorothiazide as required, in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension: a randomized, multicenter study

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan, a novel antihypertensive agent, and atenolol, a well-established beta-blocker, in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: This 26-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, titration-to-response study compared doses of telmisartan (40 mg titrated to 80 mg titrated to 120 mg) with atenolol (50 mg titrated to 100 mg) required to achieve diastolic blood pressure (DBP) control (< or = 90 mm Hg or a decrease from baseline of > or = 10 mm Hg). Open-label hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 or 25 mg was added if needed according to a prespecified titration rule. Men and women aged > 18 years with mild to moderate hypertension (morning mean supine DBP [SDBP] > or = 95 mm Hg and < or = 114 mm Hg) were eligible to participate. Patients with significant cardiovascular, metabolic, hepatic, or renal dysfunction or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were excluded. The primary efficacy end point was trough SDBP response at 26 weeks; secondary efficacy end points included changes from baseline at trough in both standing and supine DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP), and heart rate after 4, 8, 16, and 26 weeks; SBP control (reduction from baseline of > or = 10 mm Hg); normalization of supine SDBP to < or = 90 mm Hg; and the need for add-on HCTZ. Changes in quality of life were also examined. Adverse events were obtained from spontaneous reporting and recorded. Serious adverse events were reported to the sponsor according to predefined timelines. RESULTS: A total of 533 patients from 49 centers participated. Patients' mean age was 57.9 years (range, 22-79 years); 55.9% (298/533) of the population was male and 98.1% (523/533) was white. Of the 533 patients randomly assigned to treatment and included in the safety analysis, 520 (97.6%) were included in the efficacy analysis; 346 received telmisartan and 174 received atenolol. A total of 489 patients (91.7%) completed the study (325 [93.9%], telmisartan; 164 [94.2%], atenolol). Full SDBP response (trough SDBP < or = 90 mm Hg and/or a reduction from baseline of > or = 10 mm Hg) was observed in 84% and 78% of telmisartan- and atenolol-treated patients, respectively; this difference was not statistically significant. Final SBP/DBP reductions of 20.9/14.4 mm Hg were observed for the telmisartan regimen versus 16.7/13.3 mm Hg for the atenolol regimen; only the difference in SBP was significant (P = 0.005). Reduction from baseline in SBP of > or = 10 mm Hg was achieved by 80% of telmisartan-treated and 68% of atenolol-treated patients (P = 0.003). Adverse events were reported by 52.7% of patients given telmisartan and 61.2% of patients given atenolol; this difference was not statistically significant. Most events were mild or moderate. Although fatigue and male impotence were more common in atenolol-treated patients (3.4% and 4.0%, respectively), the incidence of these adverse events was too low to differentiate statistically. CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan appears to be at least as effective as atenolol in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension and may be better tolerated.     

Efficacy and safety of delapril plus manidipine compared with enalapril plus hydrochlorothiazide in mild to moderate essential hypertension: results of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND: The use of combination therapy is required to achieve blood pressure targets in 40% to 75% of patients with hypertension. There have been few studies comparing the efficacy and tolerability of the new fixed combination of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor delapril 30 mg and the calcium channel antagonist manidipine 10 mg with those of a standard combination of another ACE inhibitor and a diuretic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of delapril 30 mg given alone or with manidipine 10 mg with those of enalapril 20 mg given alone or with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. METHODS: This was a multicenter, active-controlled, parallel-group trial. After an initial 2-week placebo run-in period, patients aged 18 to 75 years with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or =90 and < or =109 mm Hg were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive delapril or enalapril for 8 weeks. After the initial 8 weeks, nonresponders (DBP > or =85 mm Hg) received an additional 8 weeks of treatment with a fixed combination of delapril + manidipine or enalapril + HCTZ; patients whose DBP was normalized continued their initial monotherapy through the end of the study. The primary efficacy variable was the change in sitting DBP at the end of treatment. Secondary efficacy variables were the percentage of patients whose DBP was normalized (DBP Z:85 mm Hg) and the percentage of responders (> or =10-mm Hg reduction in DBP or DBP <85 mm Hg). RESULTS: One hundred sixty patients (84 men, 76 women) were randomized to receive delapril (n = 106) or enalapril (n = 54). After 16 weeks of treatment, the mean (SD) reduction in DBP was similar with the 2 treatments (delapril, -14 [8] mm Hg; enalapril, -15 [8] mm Hg). In the delapril and enalapril groups, DBP was normalized in a respective 55 (51.9%) and 29 (53.7%) patients, and 77 (72.6%) and 38 (70.4%) were responders; there was no significant difference between groups. Tolerability was also similar in both groups--10 (9.4%) patients in the delapril group and 5 (9.3%) in the enalapril group experienced adverse events that were judged related to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that delapril alone or combined with manidipine is well tolerated and as effective as enalapril alone or combined with HCTZ in lowering blood pressure in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.     

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a combination of once-daily losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg compared with losartan 100-mg monotherapy in the treatment of mild to severe essential hypertension

BACKGROUND: Because patients with hypertension may require >1 antihypertensive agent to control blood pressure (BP), physicians often prescribe a fixed combination of antihypertensive medications. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of adding low-dose hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (HCTZ12.5) to high-dose losartan 100 mg (L100) in patients with hypertension whose BP was inadequately controlled with L100 monotherapy. METHODS: Enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, filter study were patients aged > or =18 years with a mean trough sitting diastolic BP (SiDBP) of 95 to 120 mm Hg. Patients were treated with L100 QD for 4 weeks. Patients who did not achieve adequate BP control were randomly assigned to receive L100/HCTZ12.5 or L100 QD for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in trough SiDBP from baseline in the 2 groups. Responders were defined as patients with a mean trough SiDBP of <90 mm Hg or patients who had a > or =10-mm Hg decrease in mean trough SiDBP. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were similar between treatment groups. The patients randomized to the double-blind treatment period were mostly white (65.1%) and male (57.5%), with a mean age of 53.8 years. The mean (SD) duration of hypertension at baseline was 9.7 (8.5) years. The proportion of patients previously treated with antihypertensive therapy was 76.7%. Of the 367 patients enrolled in the L100 filter period, 292 patients had BP inadequately controlled with L100 monotherapy and were randomized to receive L100 (n = 145) or L100/HCTZ12.5 (n = 147). At week 6 after randomization, mean trough SiDBP was significantly lower in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group (-8.3 vs -5.2, respectively; P < 0.001). The between-group difference was -3.0 mm Hg (95 % CI, -4.6 to -1.40; P < 0.001), and the proportion of responders was significantly greater in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group (63.0% vs 44.4%; P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) occurring in >2% of patients during the double-blind period was similar for both groups. AEs occurring in the L100 group and the L100/HCTZ12.5 group included respiratory tract infection (6.2% vs 3.4%, respectively), dizziness (2.1% vs 0.7%), and headache (0.7% vs 3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: After 6 weeks of therapy, L100/HCTZ12.5 was associated with greater antihypertensive efficacy than L100, as measured by the change in mean trough SiDBP The percentage of responders was significantly greater in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group.     

Chrono: a community-based hypertension trial of a chronotherapeutic formulation of verapamil

An open-label, multicenter, dose-titration study evaluated 2,556 patients with stage I or II essential hypertension (untreated or previously treated with one antihypertensive agent) to assess the effect of a chronotherapeutic formulation of verapamil (Verelan PM) designed to provide maximum plasma concentrations in the midmorning hours. After starting with 200 mg/d at bedtime, the dose of Verelan PM was titrated to a maximum of 400 mg/d at 4-week intervals to achieve a target blood pressure (BP) <140/90 mm Hg using morning BP measurements. In 85.3% of patients, a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) response to less than 90 mm Hg or a 10-mm Hg decline from baseline DBP was achieved. The systolic BP response (<140 mm Hg or 10% decline from baseline) was attained in 76.9% of patients. Blood pressure was controlled in 62.6% of patients with Verelan PM monotherapy. Upward titration of Verelan PM from 200 to 400 mg nearly doubled the DBP response rate (45.8% to 85.3%). This chronotherapeutic formulation of verapamil was well tolerated in this community trial.     

Recent advancements in the treatment of resistant hypertension

The 2008 scientific statement from the American Heart Association defined resistant hypertension as blood pressure remaining above goal (< 140/90 mm Hg for the general population and < 130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes or renal disease) despite the concurrent use of optimal doses of 3 antihypertensive agents of different classes, ideally including a diuretic. Since then, there has been increasing recognition and characterization of patients with resistant hypertension and development of treatment strategies to treat this high-risk population. The role of aldosterone in resistant hypertension has gained increasing recognition. In particular, there has been development of a strong body of evidence for the use of spironolactone as a highly effective antihypertensive agent. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence to link aldosterone with both resistant hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea, with preliminary studies suggesting that aldosterone antagonists may potentially be effective in treating both conditions. Finally, recent work has directed increased attention toward novel invasive strategies for the treatment of resistant hypertension, specifically baroreflex activation therapy with carotid stimulation and percutaneous renal artery denervation. Initial randomized controlled trials have shown that both of these methods may be used to safely lower blood pressure, thereby providing exciting and promising new tools in the armamentarium of options to treat resistant hypertension.     

Ambulatory versus clinic blood pressure for the assessment of anti hypertensive efficacy in clinical trials: insights from the Val-Syst Study

BACKGROUND: Several studies have found that measurement of blood pressure (BP) in the clinical setting may lead to overestimation of hypertension and may yield inaccurate assessments of the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of clinic BP in the Valsartan and Amlodipine for the Treatment of Isolated Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (Val-Syst) study accurately identified those elderly outpatients with systolic hypertension who had true 24-hour elevations in BP, as well as those who required dose increases in antihypertensive therapy during follow-up. METHODS: In Val-Syst, patients aged between 60 and 80 years with a clinic sitting systolic BP (SBP) of 160 to 220 mm Hg and a diastolic BP <90 mm Hg after a 2-week placebo washout period were randomized to receive valsartan 80 mg or amlodipine 5 mg once daily (level 1). In those with a trough SBP > or =140 mm Hg after 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, doses were titrated upward to valsartan 160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg once daily (level 2). If clinic SBP was > or =140 mm Hg after a further 8 weeks, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg was added for an additional 8 weeks (level 3). Clinical decisions during the active-treatment period were based on clinic BP measurements. Thirteen of the 35 participating centers assessed ambulatory BP as well as clinic BP at baseline and the end of the treatment, making it possible to compare the results of the 2 modes of measurement. The Student test was used to compare drug-induced changes in clinic and ambulatory BP in individual patients. Differences between the decreases in clinic and ambulatory BP at the 3 treatment levels were tested using repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with baseline as the covariate. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four elderly patients (age range, 60-80 years; 85 men, 79 women) were included in the study (79 valsartan, 85 amlodipine), and valsartan and amlodipine were reported to have comparable effects on the level and rhythm of 24-hour BP In the present study, 22 of 164 patients had white-coat hypertension at baseline (clinic SBP > or =160 mm Hg and mean 24-hour SBP <130 mm Hg). For both treatments combined, the mean (SD) decreases in clinic SBP were inversely proportional to the treatment level (level 1 = -33.2 (7.9) mm Hg; level 2 = -31.6 (11.8) mm Hg; level 3 = -29.3 (11.6) mm Hg; P = 0.001, overall ANCOVA). In contrast, after adjusting for baseline values, the decreases in mean 24-hour SBP did not differ between treatment levels (level 1 = -10.8 [10.4] mm Hg; level 2 = -13.0 [11.2] mm Hg; level 3 = -16.4 [13.8] mm Hg). The decrease in clinic BP during therapy was similar in patients with white-coat hypertension and sustained hypertension (clinic SBP > or 160 mm Hg and mean 24-hour SBP > or =130 mm Hg), whereas 24-hour and 8- to 9-am SBP decreased significantly only in patients with sustained hypertension (P < 0.001). At the end of the study, mean 24-hour SBP continued to be uncontrolled (> or =130 mm Hg) in 16 of 53 patients (30.2%) at treatment level 1, 27 of 62 (43.5%) at level 2, and 19 of 49 (38.8%) at level 3 (P = NS). CONCLUSION: Based on the findings in this population of elderly patients with systolic hypertension, the management of hypertension may vary depending on whether decisions concerning the selection of patients for clinical trials and treatment adjustments during follow-up are made using clinic or ambulatory BP measurement.     

高原地区以卡托普利缓释片为基础的联合降压治疗对高危高血压住院患者血压控制的影响

目的 探讨高海拔地区高危高血压住院患者以卡托普利缓释片为基础的联合降压治疗效果.方法 331例住院高血压患者依据血压值、危险因素和合并靶器官损害分为高危组(229例)和低危组(102例),高危组给予以卡托普利缓释片为基础的联合降血压治疗,低危组给予单一降压治疗,比较2组出院血压水平以及住院期间的降压幅度和出院血压达标率.结果 高危组患者收缩压、舒张压降压幅度均显著大于低危组[收缩压降幅分别为(36.83 ±22.23)、(28.74±18.71)mm Hg,舒张压降幅分别为(22.04±13.57)、(17.98±13.63)mm Hg,t值分别为-3.207、-2.509,P均<0.05),出院时平均收缩压[(125.62±14.74)、(122.28±13.13)mm Hg,t=-1.962]、舒张压[(80.67±9.82)、(78.40±9.97)mm Hg,t=-1.910]均达标且2组间比较差异无统计学意义(P均>0.05).住院期间血压治疗控制率高危组为72.06%(165/229),低危组为71.57%(73/102),2组间比较差异无统计学意义(x2=0.928,P>O.05).结论 在高海拔地区以卡托普利缓释片为基础的联合降压治疗是适合高危高血压患者降压治疗方案,能取得较满意的血压治疗控制率.

Abstract：

Objective To investigate the blood pressure control effect of captopril sustained-releasetablets based combination, antihypertensive therapy on hospitalized high-risk patients with hypertension in high altitude region. Methods According to the blood pressure,risk factors and combined target organ damage,331 hospitalized patients with essential hypertension were divided into 2 groups and accepted different treatment:low-risk group had monotherapy (n=102) , and night-risk group had captopril sustained-release-tablets based combination antihypertensive therapy (n =229). The discharge blood pressure,extent of SBP/DBP decrease and the compliance rate of discharge blood pressure of two groups were compared. Results The extent of SBP/DBP decrease in hight-risk group was significantly greater than low-risk group (SBP [36. 83 ± 22. 23] mm Hg vs.[28. 74 ±18.71] mm Hg,t=-3. 207,P <0. 05;DBP[22. 04±13. 57]mm Hg vs. [17. 98 ± 13.63] mm Hg,t =-2. 509, P < 0.05). The average discharge blood pressure in both groups reach the standard criterion, but no significant difference was observed between the two groups (SBP [125. 62 ± 14. 74] mm Hg vs. [122. 28 ±13.13]mmHg,t=-1. 962,P>0. 05;DBP[80. 67 ±9. 82]mm Hg vs. [78. 40 ±9. 97]mm Hg,t =-1.910,P > 0. 05). Furthermore we found no significant difference in the control rate of blood pressure between high-risk and low-risk group (72. 06% vs. 71. 57% , x2 = 0.928, P > 0. 05). Conclusion The captopril sustainedrelease-tablets based combination antihypertensive therapy is a reliable treatment in high-risk patients with hypertension from high altitude region,which shows satisfying blood pressure control rate.     

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of irbesartan and enalapril in adults with mild to moderate essential hypertension, as assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: the MAPAVEL Study (Monitorización Ambulatoria Presión Arterial APROVEL)

BACKGROUND: When blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy is assessed by measurements taken in a clinic setting, angiotensin II-receptor antagonists show similar efficacy to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and better tolerability. A search of MEDLINE to date, however, reveals no randomized, double-blind studies using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to compare the BP-lowering efficacy of irbesartan and enalapril in a large number of patients ( > 200) with essential hypertension. OBJECTIVE: This study compared 24-hour BP reduction and BP control, as assessed by ABPM, in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension treated with irbesartan or enalapril. The relative tolerability of the 2 treatments was also evaluated. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (office diastolic BP [DBP] 90-109 mm Hg or systolic BP [SBP] 140-179 mm Hg). After a 3-week, single-blind placebo washout phase, patients with a mean daytime DBP > or = 85 mm Hg, as measured by ABPM between 10 AM and 8 PM, were randomized to 12 weeks of active treatment with irbesartan or enalapril. Starting doses were 150 and 10 mg/d, respectively, with titration to 300 or 20 mg/d if clinic DBP was > or = 90 mm Hg at week 4 or 8. Based on clinic measurements, BP control was defined as a BP reading < 140/90 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment; patients achieving a reduction in DBP of > or = 10 mm Hg at 12 weeks were considered responders. The ABPM criterion for BP control, independent of clinic values, was achievement of a daytime BP < 130/85 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment; patients achieving a reduction in 24-hour DBP > or = 5 mm Hg at 12 weeks were considered responders, in dependent of clinic values. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients were randomized to treatment, 115 to irbesartan and 123 to enalapril. The study population was approximately 52.0% female and 48.0% male, with a mean ( +/- SD) age of 52.7 +/- 10.6 years. The study was completed by 111 patients in the irbesartan group (dose titrated to 300 mg/d in 72.0% of patients) and 115 patients in the enalapril group (dose titrated to 20 mg/d in 76.5% of patients). BP reductions were similar in the 2 groups, both as measured in the clinic (DBP, 12.7 +/- 8.8 mm Hg irbesartan vs 12.4 +/- 7.4 mm Hg enalapril; SBP, 19.0 +/- 14.1 mm Hg vs 17.5 +/- 14.0 mm Hg) and by 24-hour ABPM (DBP, 9.4 +/- 8.5 mm Hg vs 8.8 +/- 8.5 mm Hg: SBP, 14.7 +/- 14.7 mm Hg vs 12.6 +/- 13.1 mm Hg). As assessed by ABPM, rates of BP control were 40.5% (45/111) for irbesartan and 33.9% (39/115) for enalapril, and the response rates were a respective 71.2% (79/111) and 71.3% (82/115). The overall incidence of adverse events (40.0% irbesartan, 51.2% enalapril) was not statistically different between groups, although the incidence of adverse events considered probably related to antihypertensive treatment was significantly higher with enalapril than with irbesartan (24.6% vs 9.2%, respectively; P = 0.026), essentially because of the higher incidence of cough (8.1% vs 0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: As assessed by ABPM, irbesartan 150 to 300 mg/d was as effective in lowering BP and achieving BP control as enalapril 10 to 20 mg/d. Based on the number of treatment-related adverse events, irbesartan was better tolerated than enalapril.     

A multicenter, community-based study of doxazosin in the treatment of concomitant hypertension and symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: the Hypertension and BPH Intervention Trial (HABIT)

As men age, the incidence of both benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and hypertension increases. Concomitant occurrence of these conditions also increases with age, and the 2 are frequently encountered together in primary care practice. In addition, many patients with hypertension require >1 antihypertensive agent to adequately control blood pressure. In a multicenter, community-based, 8-week, uncontrolled, open-label study, we evaluated doxazosin, a selective alpha1-adrenergic-receptor antagonist, in 491 patients with concomitant symptomatic BPH (American Urological Association [AUA] symptom score > or =12) and hypertension, some previously untreated and some with inadequately controlled hypertension (systolic blood pressure 120-179 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 80-109 mm Hg) despite taking 1 or 2 antihypertensive agents. Patients were allocated to 1 of 4 groups at baseline according to their diastolic blood pressure (control was considered DBP <90 mm Hg) and whether they had received antihypertensive medication before the study. Thus the 4 groups were treated/well-controlled, treated/poorly controlled, untreated/hypertensive, and untreated/normotensive. In all patient groups, doxazosin therapy significantly improved AUA total symptom and bothersomeness scores and BPH-specific indices of health status and interference with activities (P<0.001). Significant improvements in BPH symptoms were observed with doxazosin, regardless of whether initial symptoms were moderate or severe (P<0.001). Clinically important blood pressure lowering occurred only in the patient groups in which blood pressure had been elevated at baseline. Patients whose blood pressure was poorly controlled at baseline, either without or with treatment (predominantly with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or calcium channel blockers), achieved adequate blood pressure control (reduction to <140/90 mm Hg) with the addition of doxazosin. Similar improvements in blood pressure and BPH symptoms were seen in both older (> or =65 years) and younger (45 to 64 years) patients, and doxazosin was well tolerated by both groups. The most frequent treatment-related adverse event was dizziness (13.0% of patients); however, patients classified the dizziness as mild in approximately 75% of reports, and severe dizziness was reported by only 2 patients (0.4%). Doxazosin is an effective antihypertensive agent when used in combination with agents from other antihypertensive classes in patients with poorly controlled hypertension and BPH, and is also successful as monotherapy for controlling both BPH and hypertension in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

Improved blood pressure control with a physician-nurse team and home blood pressure measurement

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a physician-nurse team model could improve long-term hypertension control rates by active intervention and modification of antihypertensive drug regimens based on home blood pressure (BP) measurements. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study consisted of patients referred to a hypertension specialty clinic between July 1999 and June 2002 for the evaluation and management of uncontrolled hypertension. Patients were evaluated initially by a physician. A treatment plan was designed and implemented subsequently by a hypertension nurse specialist. Each patient was given an automated digital home BP monitor and requested to provide 42 BP readings taken during 7 days at intervals of 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after dismissal from the clinic. The mean of these weekly values was reviewed by the physician-nurse team, and the treatment regimen was adjusted to achieve a goal BP of less than 135/85 mm Hg. RESULTS: One hundred six consecutively referred patients were enrolled in the study (mean+/-SD age, 64+/-14 years; 58% female; baseline BP, 156+/-16/85+/-11 mm Hg). Ninety-four patients submitted BP data after 1 month, and 78 patients completed the entire 12-month study period. Overall, mean BP decreased to 138+/-17/78+/-8 mm Hg at 1 month and to 131+/-9/75+/-7 mm Hg at 12 months (P<.01 vs baseline). The percentage of patients who achieved BP control to less than 135/85 mm Hg increased from 0% at baseline to 63% at 12 months. Intensification of antihypertensive drug therapy was required, on average, in 24% of patients at each study interval. The mean number of drugs increased from 1.2 at baseline to 2.0 at 12 months (P<.01). CONCLUSION: The use of home BP measurement by a physician-nurse team has the potential to significantly improve long-term hypertension control rates in a geographically dispersed patient population. This model should reduce both cost and inconvenience associated with the treatment of hypertension.     

A 26-week, prospective, open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter study to evaluate the effect of an escalating-dose regimen of trandolapril on change in blood pressure in treatment-naive and concurrently treated adult hypertensive subjects (TRAIL)

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effectiveness of an escalating-dose regimen of trandolapril in subjects with stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension. METHODS: This was a 26-week, prospective, open-label,multicenter study in Canadian primary care centers. Subjects with hypertension who were treatment naive or whose disease was uncontrolled on current first-line antihypertensive monotherapy were treated with trandolapril for 26 weeks alone or in addition to their current treatment. Uncontrolled hypertension was defined as systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) >or=140/90 mm Hg in subjects with no other risk factors or >or=130/80 mm Hg in subjects with diabetes or kidney disease. Trandolapril therapy was initiated at 1 mg/d and was titrated as required to 2 or 4 mg at 4 and 9 weeks after initiation of treatment, respectively, in those not achieving BP targets. At 14 weeks after treatment initiation, subjects not achieving BP targets could receive a combination of trandolapril 4 mg plus a calcium channel blocker (verapamil 240 mg) with or without a diuretic. Primary outcome was the percentage of patients reaching target BP after 14 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 1683 subjects from 192 general practice clinics across Canada completed the 14-week trandolapril dose-optimization phase, and 1650 completed the full 26-week follow-up. Mean (SD) age was 56.6 (12.6) years, and 49.2% of the subjects were men. At baseline, 82.4% (1359/1650) of subjects were antihypertensive-treatment naive. At the trial end, 73.4% (95% CI, 70.9-75.9) of subjects achieved a target level of SBP/DBP <140/90 mm Hg. The mean (SD) reductions in SBP and DBP were -21.5 (14.0) and -11.9 (9.1) mm Hg, respectively (P < 0.001), and -22.4 (14.0) and -12.7 (9.0) mm Hg, respectively (P < 0.001), at 26 weeks. A total of 343 predominantly mild, nonserious adverse events were attributed to the study drugs, reported by 252 (15.3%) of the 1650 subjects. The most frequently reported nonserious adverse events were cough (6.3%); gastrointestinal disorders (2.3%), predominantly nausea; and headache (2.1%). No serious adverse events were attributed to the study treatment. Trandolapril was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: A titration-based, escalating-dose regimen of trandolapril was effective and well tolerated in the management of these subjects who were antihypertensive-treatment naive or whose disease was uncontrolled on a diuretic or a calcium channel blocker in this open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter study. Overall, 73.4% of subjects achieved their target blood pressure goal (<140/90 mm Hg).     

Medically supervised water-only fasting in the treatment of hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension-related diseases are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in industrially developed societies. Although antihypertensive drugs are extensively used, dietary and lifestyle modifications also are effective in the treatment of patients with hypertension. One such lifestyle intervention is the use of medically supervised, water-only fasting as a safe and effective means of normalizing blood pressure and initiating health-promoting behavioral changes. METHODS: One hundred seventy-four consecutive hypertensive patients with blood pressure in excess of 140 mm Hg systolic, 90 mm Hg diastolic (140/90 mm Hg), or both were treated in an inpatient setting under medical supervision. The treatment program consisted of a short prefasting period (approximately 2 to 3 days on average) during which food consumption was limited to fruits and vegetables, followed by medically supervised water-only fasting (approximately 10 to 11 days on average) and a refeeding period (approximately 6 to 7 days on average) introducing a low-fat, low-sodium, vegan diet. RESULTS: Almost 90% of the subjects achieved blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg by the end of the treatment program. The average reduction in blood pressure was 37/13 mm Hg, with the greatest decrease being observed for subjects with the most severe hypertension. Patients with stage 3 hypertension (those with systolic blood pressure greater than 180 mg Hg, diastolic blood pressure greater than 110 mg Hg, or both) had an average reduction of 60/17 mm Hg at the conclusion of treatment. All of the subjects who were taking antihypertensive medication at entry (6.3% of the total sample) successfully discontinued the use of medication. CONCLUSION: Medically supervised water-only fasting appears to be a safe and effective means of normalizing blood pressure and may assist in motivating health-promoting diet and lifestyle changes.     

Randomized, controlled, parallel-group comparison of ambulatory and clinic blood pressure responses to amlodipine or enalapril during and after treatment in adult chinese patients with hypertension

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the relative efficacy and tolerability of antihypertensive drug classes in Chinese populations. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and duration of antihypertensive effect of amlodipine besylate and enalapril in Chinese patients with hypertension, including elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group dose-titration study was conducted at the Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Chinese University of Hong Kong. Chinese patients aged 18 to 80 years with primary hypertension were enrolled. After a 4-week placebo run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive active oral, once-daily treatment with amlodipine (5 mg) or with enalapril (5 mg) for 14 weeks. Treatment doses were titrated at weeks 4 and 8 if necessary according to blood pressure (BP) response and if the dose had been tolerated. Patients also underwent 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) at the end of the placebo run-in, after the first and last doses of active treatment, and 48 hours after discontinuation of treatment to determine the duration of drug action and to mimic the effect of 2 missed doses. RESULTS: Eighty patients were recruited for the study (26 men, 54 women; mean [SD] age, 60.5 [11.6] years) (40 patients per group). Thirty-seven patients in each group completed the active treatment phase. Baseline trough BPs were similar: 167.7 (15.0)/94.6 (9.7) mm Hg in the amlodipine group and 168.6 (11.9)/93.4 (9.5) mm Hg in the enalapril group. After 14 weeks of treatment, amlodipine (mean [SD] final dose, 6.3 [2.3] mg) produced greater reductions than enalapril (mean [SD] final dose, 13.3 [6.6] mg) in trough BP (-20.8 [13.2]/-9.2 [9.0] vs -5.5 [14.9]/-3.2 [10.6] mm Hg, respectively; P < or = 0.01). Most of the effect of amlodipine persisted for 72 hours after the last dose (-18.9 [14.6]/-11.1 [11.7] mm Hg), but enalapril had no significant antihypertensive effect at 72 hours (-1.3 [12.3]/-1.8 [9.1] mm Hg). Similar observations were found with ABPM recordings. Cough was reported in 5 patients (12.5%) and 13 patients (32.5%) in the amlodipine and enalapril groups, respectively, but was thought to be treatment related in only 6 patients (15.0%), all in the enalapril group. One of the patients in the enalapril group withdrew from the study because of cough, and 1 patient in the amlodipine group withdrew because of ankle edema.     

Effects of combination therapy with captopril and nifedipine in severe or resistant hypertension

To assess the effect of potent vasodilator therapy in patients with severe or resistant hypertension, 10 patients underwent therapy with captopril and nifedipine alone and in combination. Blood pressure (BP), heart rate, and blood chemistry values were monitored for 4 weeks during captopril monotherapy and after 8 weeks during combination therapy with captopril and nifedipine. Compared with baseline, the BP decreased during captopril monotherapy (180 +/- 11/98 +/- 7 vs. 209 +/- 16/118 +/- 12 mm Hg; P less than 0.005). After the addition of nifedipine, the BP was further reduced (148 +/- 23/85 +/- 16 mm Hg), but there was no change in heart rate. In three patients not achieving the diastolic BP goal during combination therapy with dosing every 8 hours, automatic 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring demonstrated lack of antihypertensive control for only the last 2 to 3 hours of the dosing interval. These data demonstrate that combination therapy with captopril and nifedipine is effective in patients with severe hypertension, but frequent dosing intervals are necessary for adequate antihypertensive control.