Dose finding studies with imidapril--a new ACE inhibitor. Tricenter assessment of the efficacy of the ACE inhibitor, moexipril, by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Pharmaceutical care program for patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Report of a double-blind clinical trial with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Lowering blood pressure reduces renal events in type 2 diabetes. Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK trial. Matrix study of irbesartan with hydrochlorothiazide in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Augmented short- and long-term hemodynamic and hormonal effects of an angiotensin receptor blocker added to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor therapy in patients with heart failure. Vasodilator Heart Failure Trial (V-HeFT) Study Group. Additive effects of verapamil and enalapril in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. Efficacy of ACE inhibitors and ATII receptor blockers in patients with microalbuminuria: a prospective study. ACE inhibitors and persistent left ventricular hypertrophy after renal transplantation: a randomized clinical trial. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. HOT Study Group. [Randomized, comparative study on the treatment of moderate arterial hypertension during pregnancy: methyldopa, acebutolol, labetalol]. Reduction of ACE activity is insufficient to decrease microalbuminuria in normotensive patients with type 1 diabetes. Evaluation of the 24-hour blood pressure effects of eprosartan in patients with systemic hypertension. The effect on 24 h blood pressure control of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (perindopril) administered in the morning or at night. A factorial study of combination hypertension treatment with metoprolol succinate extended release and felodipine extended release results of the Metoprolol Succinate-Felodipine Antihypertension Combination Trial (M-FACT). Effect of intensive blood pressure control with valsartan on urinary albumin excretion in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter trial of four doses of tasosartan in patients with essential hypertension. Tasosartan Investigator's Group. Valsartan in heart failure patients previously untreated with an ACE inhibitor. Distinct time courses of renal protective action of angiotensin receptor antagonists and ACE inhibitors in chronic renal disease. The effects of the long-acting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor cilazapril on casual, exercise, and ambulatory blood pressure. Effects of comprehensive lifestyle modification on blood pressure control: main results of the PREMIER clinical trial. Efficacy and tolerance of trandolapril (0.5-2 mg) administered for 4 weeks in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Investigator Study Group. Treatment of isolated systolic hypertension: the SHELL study results. Twenty-four hour blood pressure effect of once-daily lisinopril, enalapril, and placebo in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Treatment of arterial hypertension in diabetic humans: importance of therapeutic selection. Double-blind comparison of antihypertensive treatment with ramipril and piretanide, given alone or in combination. Fosinopril monotherapy: relationship between blood pressure reduction and time of administration. Early ACE-i intervention in microalbuminuric patients with type 1 diabetes: effects on albumin excretion, 24 h ambulatory blood pressure, and renal function. Evaluation of the efficacy and tolerability of a low-dose combination of isradipine and spirapril in the first-line treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension. Blood-pressure control for renoprotection in patients with non-diabetic chronic renal disease (REIN-2): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function intolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Alternative trial. Intensive blood pressure reduction in acute cerebral haemorrhage trial (INTERACT): a randomised pilot trial. ACE inhibitor versus beta-blocker for the treatment of hypertension in renal allograft recipients. ACE inhibitor mediated reductions in renal size and microalbuminuria in normotensive, diabetic subjects. Effects of candesartan cilexetil in patients with systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators. Renal function and effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy in patients with chronic stable coronary disease in the Prevention of Events with ACE inhibition (PEACE) trial. Comparative efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and losartan in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators. A comparison of celiprolol and chlorthalidone in hypertensive patients with reversible bronchial obstruction. Double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of trandolapril 2 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Investigator Study Group. Nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce blood pressure in older patients with mild hypertension. Treatment of IgA nephropathy with ACE inhibitors: a randomized and controlled trial. Beta blockade, diuretics, and salt restriction for the management of mild hypertension: a randomised double blind trial. Study of the efficacy and safety of the combination ramipril 2.5 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. ATHES Study Group. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of candesartan after administration of its pro-drug candesartan cilexetil in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension--a population analysis. Comparison of 25 and 75 mg/day naftopidil for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a prospective, randomized controlled study. Effects of aggressive blood pressure control in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients on albuminuria, retinopathy and strokes. Monotherapy of essential hypertension with a converting-enzyme inhibitor. The effect of cilazapril, a new angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, on peak and trough blood pressure measurements in hypertensive patients. Hypertensive emergencies in old age: effects of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. Controlled multicenter study of the antihypertensive effects of lisinopril, hydrochlorothiazide, and lisinopril plus hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of 394 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Different effects of antihypertensive regimens based on fosinopril or hydrochlorothiazide with or without lipid lowering by pravastatin on progression of asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis: principal results of PHYLLIS--a randomized double-blind trial. Effects of long-term enalapril treatment on persistent micro-albuminuria in well-controlled hypertensive and normotensive NIDDM patients. A multifactorial trial design to assess combination therapy in hypertension. Treatment with bisoprolol and hydrochlorothiazide. Pentoxifylline is as effective as captopril in the reduction of microalbuminuria in non-hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients--a randomized, equivalent trial. Trial of Nonpharmacologic Intervention in the Elderly (TONE). Design and rationale of a blood pressure control trial. Evaluation of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of moexipril, a new ACE inhibitor, compared to hydrochlorothiazide in elderly patients. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy with irbesartan and HCTZ monotherapy in the treatment of moderate hypertension. Beta-blockers versus diuretics in hypertensive men: main results from the HAPPHY trial. A comparison of two dose regimens of epsilon aminocaproic acid in the prevention and management of secondary traumatic hyphemas. Effect of pharmacist intervention and initiation of home blood pressure monitoring in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Reduction of morning blood pressure surge after treatment with nifedipine GITS at bedtime, but not upon awakening, in essential hypertension. Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of metoprolol and felodipine in comparison with the individual substances in monotherapy. The Swedish/United Kingdom Study Group. ADEPT: Addition of the AT1 receptor antagonist eprosartan to ACE inhibitor therapy in chronic heart failure trial: hemodynamic and neurohormonal effects. Comparison of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy at doses up to 320/25 mg versus monotherapy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study followed by long-term combination therapy in hypertensive adults. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Effects of moderate salt restriction alone and in combination with cilazapril on office and ambulatory blood pressure. Combined enalapril and felodipine extended release (ER) for systemic hypertension. Enalapril-Felodipine ER Factorial Study Group. Effect of intravenous nimodipine on blood pressure and outcome after acute stroke. Renoprotective properties of ACE-inhibition in non-diabetic nephropathies with non-nephrotic proteinuria. Long-term beneficial effect of ACE inhibition on diabetic nephropathy in normotensive type 1 diabetic patients. Evaluation of the dose-effect relationship of a new ace inhibitor (perindopril) by an automatic blood pressure recorder. Additive antiproteinuric effect of pentoxifylline in patients with type 2 diabetes under angiotensin II receptor blockade: a short-term, randomized, controlled trial. [Comparison of effects of aprotinin and tranexamic acid on blood loss in heart surgery]. Does metformin decrease blood pressure in patients with Type 2 diabetes intensively treated with insulin? Insulin sensitivity and lipid metabolism with oral contraceptives containing chlormadinone acetate or desogestrel: a randomized trial. Evaluation of the efficacy and tolerability of nitrendipine in reducing both pressure and left ventricular mass in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients. Enalapril/amlodipine combination in cyclosporine-treated renal transplant recipients: a prospective randomized trial.
1. We describe an approach involving a smaller, shorter study, leading onto a longer, larger study in which the antihypertensive effects of ascending doses of imidapril, a new ACE inhibitor, were investigated. Both studies were planned prospectively, assuming a clinically useful fall in BP to be 8 mm Hg (s.d. = 9). The studies included patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (baseline sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) 95-115 mm Hg). After a placebo run-in of 2-3 weeks patients received either placebo or imidapril 2.5, 5, 10 or 20 mg in the 2 week study (n = 91) or imidapril 5, 10, 20 or 40 mg in the 4 week study (n = 162). 2. The overall mean baseline SDBP was 103.4 mm Hg (s.d. 0.62) in the initial study and 101.5 mm Hg (s.d. 0.41) in the 4 week study. 3. Compared with placebo, imidapril 10, 20 and 40 mg significantly reduced SDBP. There was no significant difference between these doses, suggesting that 10 mg achieved maximal ACE inhibition in most patients. The 2.5 mg dose showed no significant effect. The 5 mg dose gave an intermediate effect. In both studies the overall incidence of adverse events was similar in the imidapril and placebo groups, and was not worrying. To assess the efficacy and time-dependent effects of once-daily moexipril, a nonsulfhydryl ester prodrug of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, moexiprilat, we conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 51 hypertensive patients using both clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) recordings. Patients were included in the trial based on a minimum of 40% of the daytime diastolic BPs of 90 mm Hg or more during a placebo baseline phase; and the primary endpoint was change in 24-hour ambulatory diastolic BP. Patients were randomized to receive placebo, 7.5 mg of moexipril, or 15 mg of moexipril once daily. Clinic and ambulatory BPs were taken on the first day and after eight weeks of double-blind therapy. After the 7.5-mg dose, there were no significant changes in the acute or prolonged clinic BPs compared with placebo. Compared with adjusted mean changes for placebo, the 15-mg moexipril dose lowered clinic systolic BP, but not diastolic BP. In contrast, acute (1 day) reductions in 24-hour diastolic BPs were -2/-3 mm Hg, -6/-4 mm Hg, and -14/-9 mm Hg on placebo, 7.5 mg of moexipril, and 15 mg of moexipril, respectively (P < .01 for the 15-mg dose). Similarly, after long-term dosing for 8 weeks, reductions in 24-hour diastolic BPs were 1/-2 mm Hg, -6/-4 mm Hg, and -12/-9 mm Hg for the respective treatment groups (P < .01 for the 15-mg dose).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Pharmaceutical care programs may be an option to improve blood pressure (BP) control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of pharmaceutical care programs in treating patients with resistant hypertension.
                In a double-blind randomized clinical trial, 71 patients with uncontrolled BP were enrolled in a pharmaceutical care program or in a control group and underwent a series of cognitive tests. The primary outcome was change in ambulatory BP (ABP) between the baseline evaluation and the final visit 6 months later. The secondary outcomes were the frequency of drug-related problems and adherence as determined by plasma levels of hydrochlorothiazide.
                The delta-values between the intervention and control groups for ABP in the different daily periods, with the corresponding 95% confidence limits, adjusted for age and baseline BP were: 3 (-1 to 5), 2 (-2 to 4), and 5 (-1 to 6) mm Hg for 24 h, daily and nightly systolic BP, respectively. The corresponding values for diastolic BP were 1 (-1 to 3), 0 (-2 to 2), and 3 (-1 to 4) mm Hg, respectively. Hydrochlorothiazide was detected in the plasma in 21 of 27 patients in the intervention group that attended to all appointments and 24 of 30 patients in the control group (P = .904).
                The pharmaceutical care program tested in this trial was feasible and showed a trend for better BP control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. BP is an important determinant of kidney disease among patients with diabetes. The recommended thresholds to initiate treatment to lower BP are 130/80 and 125/75 mmHg for people with diabetes and nephropathy, respectively. We sought to determine the effects of lowering BP below these currently recommended thresholds on renal outcomes among 11,140 patients who had type 2 diabetes and participated in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: preterAx and diamicroN-MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) study. Patients were randomly assigned to fixed combination perindopril-indapamide or placebo, regardless of their BP at entry. During a mean follow-up of 4.3 yr, active treatment reduced the risk for renal events by 21% (P < 0.0001), which was driven by reduced risks for developing microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria (both P < 0.003). Effects of active treatment were consistent across subgroups defined by baseline systolic or diastolic BP. Lower systolic BP levels during follow-up, even to <110 mmHg, was associated with progressively lower rates of renal events. In conclusion, BP-lowering treatment with perindopril-indapamide administered routinely to individuals with type 2 diabetes provides important renoprotection, even among those with initial BP <120/70 mmHg. We could not identify a BP threshold below which renal benefit is lost. Hypertension is a leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States, with no known treatment to prevent progressive declines leading to ESRD.
                To compare the effects of 2 levels of blood pressure (BP) control and 3 antihypertensive drug classes on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline in hypertension.
                Randomized 3 x 2 factorial trial with enrollment from February 1995 to September 1998.
                A total of 1094 African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (GFR, 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) were recruited from 21 clinical centers throughout the United States and followed up for 3 to 6.4 years.
                Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 mean arterial pressure goals, 102 to 107 mm Hg (usual; n = 554) or 92 mm Hg or less (lower; n = 540), and to initial treatment with either a beta-blocker (metoprolol 50-200 mg/d; n = 441), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ramipril 2.5-10 mg/d; n = 436) or a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, (amlodipine 5-10 mg/d; n = 217). Open-label agents were added to achieve the assigned BP goals.
                Rate of change in GFR (GFR slope); clinical composite outcome of reduction in GFR by 50% or more (or > or =25 mL/min per 1.73 m2) from baseline, ESRD, or death. Three primary treatment comparisons were specified: lower vs usual BP goal; ramipril vs metoprolol; and amlodipine vs metoprolol.
                Achieved BP averaged (SD) 128/78 (12/8) mm Hg in the lower BP group and 141/85 (12/7) mm Hg in the usual BP group. The mean (SE) GFR slope from baseline through 4 years did not differ significantly between the lower BP group (-2.21 [0.17] mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year) and the usual BP group (-1.95 [0.17] mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year; P =.24), and the lower BP goal did not significantly reduce the rate of the clinical composite outcome (risk reduction for lower BP group = 2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -22% to 21%; P =.85). None of the drug group comparisons showed consistent significant differences in the GFR slope. However, compared with the metoprolol and amlodipine groups, the ramipril group manifested risk reductions in the clinical composite outcome of 22% (95% CI, 1%-38%; P =.04) and 38% (95% CI, 14%-56%; P =.004), respectively. There was no significant difference in the clinical composite outcome between the amlodipine and metoprolol groups.
                No additional benefit of slowing progression of hypertensive nephrosclerosis was observed with the lower BP goal. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors appear to be more effective than beta-blockers or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers in slowing GFR decline. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and antihypertensive dose-response effects of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After a 4- to 5-week single-blind placebo lead-in period, 683 patients with seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) between 95 and 110 mm Hg were randomized to receive once-daily dosing with one of 16 different double-blind, fixed combinations of irbesartan (0, 37.5, 100, and 300 mg irbesartan) and HCTZ (0, 6.25, 12.5, and 25 mg HCTZ) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in trough SeDBP after 8 weeks of therapy. Data were analyzed by response surface modeling. At Week 8, mean changes from baseline in trough SeDBP (mm Hg) ranged from -3.5 for placebo, -7.1 to -10.2 for the irbesartan monotherapy groups, -5.1 to -8.3 for the HCTZ monotherapy groups, and -8.1 to -15.0 for the combination groups. Irbesartan plus HCTZ produced additive reductions in both SeDBP and seated systolic BP, with at least one combination producing greater BP reduction than either drug alone (P < .001). All treatments were well tolerated; there were no treatment-related serious adverse events. Irbesartan tended to ameliorate the dose-related biochemical abnormalities associated with HCTZ alone. In conclusion, the combination of HCTZ in doses up to 25 mg with irbesartan, in doses up to 300 mg, is safe and produces dose-dependent reductions in BP. ACE inhibitors may not adequately suppress deleterious levels of angiotensin II in patients with heart failure. An angiotensin receptor blocker added to an ACE inhibitor may exert additional beneficial effects.
                Eighty-three symptomatic stable patients with chronic heart failure receiving long-term ACE inhibitor therapy were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with valsartan 80 mg BID, valsartan 160 mg BID, or placebo while receiving their usual ACE inhibitor therapy. Studies were performed before and after the first dose of the test drug and again after 4 weeks of therapy. A single dose of lisinopril was administered during study days to ensure sustained ACE inhibition. Compared with placebo, the first dose of valsartan 160 mg resulted in a significantly greater reduction in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure at 3, 4, and 8 hours and during the prespecified 4- to 8-hour interval after the dose and in systolic blood pressure at 2, 3, 6, 8, and 12 hours and 4 to 8 hours after the dose. A pressure reduction from valsartan 80 mg did not achieve statistical significance. After 4 weeks of therapy, net reductions in 0-hour trough pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (-4.3 mm Hg; P=0. 16), pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (-4.7 mm Hg; P=0.013), and systolic blood pressure (-6.8 mm Hg; P=0.013) were observed in the valsartan 160 mg group compared with placebo. After 4 weeks of therapy, plasma aldosterone was reduced by valsartan 80 mg BID (-52. 1 pg/mL; P=0.001) and 160 mg BID (-47.8 pg/mL; P<0.001) compared with placebo, and there was a trend for a reduction in plasma norepinephrine (-97 pg/mL; P=0.10). Seventy-four of the 83 patients completed the trial.
                Physiologically active levels of angiotensin II persist during standard long-term ACE inhibitor therapy. A factorial design was applied in this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the calcium-channel blocker verapamil and the ACE inhibitor enalapril to assess the hypotensive effects of the combination compared with monotherapy, to evaluate safety, and to determine the effects on quality of life (QOL) of both drugs, alone and in combination. The study consisted of a 3 x 2 factorial design wherein 186 men and women with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) of between 95 mm Hg and 114 mm Hg, after a 4-week placebo washout, were randomized to one of six treatment groups for 4 weeks of active treatment. Monotherapy with both 240 mg verapamil and 10 mg enalapril reduced systolic and diastolic BP to a similar extent and significantly more than placebo. The 240 mg verapamil + 10 mg enalapril combination was additive for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure; 120 mg verapamil + 10 mg enalapril was additive for systolic BP only. The total number of adverse events reported was similar for all six treatment groups. QOL scores were unchanged from baseline and not different between treatment groups. The combination of 240 mg verapamil and 10 mg enalapril was significantly more effective at reducing BP than either drug alone; this additivity of effect was not linked to a higher rate of adverse experiences or to a deterioration in QOL. Thus, combination therapy at lower doses may offer an alternative treatment option to higher dose monotherapy. We compared the efficacy of treatment protocols with an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor alone (enalapril, 5 mg) or angiotensin II (ATII) receptor blocker (losartan, 50 mg) or both enalapril plus losartan in patients with microalbuminuria in a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Normotensive type 2 diabetic patients with microalbuminuria documented by at least 3 consecutive urinary albumin excretion analyses were recruited for the study. Patients were grouped randomly into one of the protocols which consisted of treatment with 5 mg enalapril daily (group 1; n=12), 50 mg losartan daily (group 2; n=12) or both drugs (group 3; n=10). They were reevaluated with regard to HbA1c levels, lipid profiles, blood pressure and urinary albumin excretion rates (UAER) at 3-month intervals for 12 months. Mean age, duration of diabetes, body mass index, plasma lipid profiles and blood pressure levels were similar at the initial visit. In group 1, UAER returned to normal levels in 10 patients. Normalization of UAER occurred in 8 and 7 patients in groups 2 and 3, respectively. Percentage of reduction in UAERs at the end of 12 months were 58%, 59% and 60% (p=0.0001; p=0.0002; p=0.0003, respectively). The amount of reduction in UAER did not differ significantly among the three groups (p=0.346). ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers have similar efficacy in treating diabetic microalbuminuria, and the combination of the two drugs does not add any further benefit. Interventional studies of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in renal transplant recipients are scarce and to date evaluated only patients immediately after renal transplantation.
                Randomized controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in regressing persistent LVH after successful transplantation.
                70 renal transplant recipients (47 men; age, 30 to 68 years) without diabetes previously randomly assigned to either cyclosporine or tacrolimus therapy, with LVH persisting 3 to 6 months after transplantation.
                Subjects were randomly assigned to either lisinopril (ACE-inhibitor group; 36 patients) or no therapy (control group; 34 subjects).
                Main outcome was change in left ventricular mass index (LVMi) at month 18.
                A consistent decrease in both systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was observed in both groups (between-group differences, -1.7 +/- 3.3 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.8 to 8.2; P = 0.6 for SBP; 0.3 +/- 2.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.8 to 4.1; P = 0.9 for DBP), whereas LVMi regressed more in the ACE-inhibitor group (between-group difference, 10.1 +/- 16.3 g/m(2.7); 95% CI, 4.2 to 16.1; P < 0.01). A significant interaction of ACE inhibitors with cyclosporine in affecting LVMi change was shown by means of post hoc multiple regression analysis (P < 0.01; differences between cyclosporine and tacrolimus group, 13.3 +/- 3.9 g/m(2.7); 95% CI, 5.3 to 21.2; P < 0.01 in the ACE-inhibitor group; 3.7 +/- 4.2 g/m(2.7); 95% CI, -4.7 to 12.2; P = 0.4 in the control group).
                Single-center study with small sample size. Interaction of ACE inhibitors with cyclosporine treatment emerged from post hoc analysis.
                A prolonged course of ACE-inhibitor therapy is effective in regressing the persistent LVH of renal transplant recipients by mechanisms independent of effects on BP. This regression seems to be at least in part the effect of an interaction between ACE inhibitors and cyclosporine. Despite treatment, there is often a higher incidence of cardiovascular complications in patients with hypertension than in normotensive individuals. Inadequate reduction of their blood pressure is a likely cause, but the optimum target blood pressure is not known. The impact of acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) has never been investigated in patients with hypertension. We aimed to assess the optimum target diastolic blood pressure and the potential benefit of a low dose of acetylsalicylic acid in the treatment of hypertension.
                18790 patients, from 26 countries, aged 50-80 years (mean 61.5 years) with hypertension and diastolic blood pressure between 100 mm Hg and 115 mm Hg (mean 105 mm Hg) were randomly assigned a target diastolic blood pressure. 6264 patients were allocated to the target pressure < or =90 mm Hg, 6264 to < or =85 mm Hg, and 6262 to < or =80 mm Hg. Felodipine was given as baseline therapy with the addition of other agents, according to a five-step regimen. In addition, 9399 patients were randomly assigned 75 mg/day acetylsalicylic acid (Bamycor, Astra) and 9391 patients were assigned placebo.
                Diastolic blood pressure was reduced by 20.3 mm Hg, 22.3 mm Hg, and 24.3 mm Hg, in the < or =90 mm Hg, < or =85 mm Hg, and < or =80 mm Hg target groups, respectively. The lowest incidence of major cardiovascular events occurred at a mean achieved diastolic blood pressure of 82.6 mm Hg; the lowest risk of cardiovascular mortality occurred at 86.5 mm Hg. Further reduction below these blood pressures was safe. In patients with diabetes mellitus there was a 51% reduction in major cardiovascular events in target group < or =80 mm Hg compared with target group < or =90 mm Hg (p for trend=0.005). Acetylsalicylic acid reduced major cardiovascular events by 15% (p=0.03) and all myocardial infarction by 36% (p=0.002), with no effect on stroke. There were seven fatal bleeds in the acetylsalicylic acid group and eight in the placebo group, and 129 versus 70 non-fatal major bleeds in the two groups, respectively (p<0.001).
                Intensive lowering of blood pressure in patients with hypertension was associated with a low rate of cardiovascular events. The HOT Study shows the benefits of lowering the diastolic blood pressure down to 82.6 mm Hg. Acetylsalicylic acid significantly reduced major cardiovascular events with the greatest benefit seen in all myocardial infarction. There was no effect on the incidence of stroke or fatal bleeds, but non-fatal major bleeds were twice as common. The aim of this prospective, monocentric, opened study and with random order for antihypertensive sequence was to compare a betablocker with sympathomimetic activity (ACE) and an alphabetablocker (LAB) to the gold standard treatment (MD) in moderate HDP (BP greater than 90 mmHg). This study (January 1984 to December 1985) includes 63 women, mean age 28.2 years, divided into three comparable subgroups (age, parity, risk factors and initial level of SBP/DBP). Initial doses are 500 mg/bid (MD), and 400 mg/bid (ACE, LAB) and optimal dosages could not be respectively more than 1500 mg/bid (MD) or 1200 mg/bid (ACE, LAB). Usual criteria for maternal and foetal care are taken into account. The chi 2 test, the Student "t" test and the Kruskall Wallis test were used for statistical analysis. The results show: 1--A similar antihypertensive effect for MD and LAB, but significantly less for ACE (initial PAD-37th week PAD: MD +/- 18.8 +/- 2; LAB = -17.9 +/- 3; ACE = - 8.2 +/- 2.7 mmHg, p less than 0.02; 2--A more frequent adjustment of daily dosage with MD (n = 15) than with ACE (n = 10) or LAB (n = 7); 3--The absence of any significant difference for uricemia level, platelet counts, foetal cardiac rythm, and occurrence of pre-eclampsia (MD = 4; ACE = 3; LAB = 4; 4--An equivalent birth-weight (MD = 3110 +/- 628 g; ACE = 3115 +/- 645.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) To study whether administration of 1.25 and 5.0 mg ramipril daily, compared with placebo treatment, reduces the urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER) in normotensive patients with type 1 diabetes.
                Ramipril was administered double blind at two different doses (1.25 [n = 19] and 5.0 mg [n = 18]), and compared with placebo (n = 18) after a single-blind placebo period of 1-4 weeks. The patients (total, n = 55; women, n = 14) were followed for 2 years. To document an effect on the renin-angiotensin system, ACE activity and plasma-renin activity (PRA) were measured. In addition, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) was recorded at baseline and repeated after 1 and 2 years using a Spacelab 90207 ambulatory BP recording device (Spacelab, Redmont, CA).
                Both doses of ramipril were sufficient to reduce ACE activity and to increase PRA significantly as compared with placebo (P < 0.05 for both). On the other hand, neither ambulatory nor clinic BP was affected by either dose of ramipril compared with the placebo group. There was no progression of UAER in the placebo group during the 2 years of the study. Analysis of covariance showed no differences in UAER between the three treatment groups at year 1 (P = 0.94) or year 2 (P = 0.97), after adjusting for baseline. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant changes from baseline UAER within any of the three treatment groups.
                Treatment with ramipril did not affect microalbuminuria or clinic or ambulatory BP in this study. On the basis of the present study, we question the clinical use of ACE inhibitors in stably normotensive patients with type 1 diabetes and microalbuminuria in whom a concomitant reduction in BP is not demonstrated. Eprosartan is a new nonphenyl angiotensin II receptor blocker, which has been approved for the treatment of hypertension. Although the drug has a relatively short plasma half-life of 5 to 9 h, clinical studies have suggested that its antihypertensive effect persists for 24 h.
                We assessed both the changes in 24-h and trough blood pressure (BP) (last 4 h of the ambulatory BP while the patient was awake) of eprosartan at doses of 600 and 1,200 mg once daily in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ambulatory BP was monitored at placebo baseline and after 8 weeks of double-blind therapy.
                Two hundred patients randomized in the study with 177 patients completing the trial. The 24-h change in BP from baseline was 0.2/0.1 +/- 1.4/1.0 mm Hg, -7.9/ -5.4 +/- 1.0 mm Hg (P < .0001), and -7.4/-5.0 +/- 0.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) in the placebo, 600-mg eprosartan, and 1,200-mg eprosartan groups, respectively. Changes in trough ambulatory BP showed significant reductions of -6.3/-4.1 +/- 1.6/1.1 mm Hg and -7.7/-5.5 +/- 1.5/1.0 mm Hg for 600 mg of eprosartan and 1,200 mg of eprosartan, respectively.
                These data demonstrate that eprosartan at doses of 600 or 1200 mg significantly reduced BP throughout an entire 24-h dosing period. There were no differences between the 600- and 1,200-mg dose; thus, 600 mg once daily should be the only dose used in the treatment of hypertension with eprosartan. To determine the clinic and ambulatory blood pressure when the same dose of perindopril (4 mg) is administered in the morning (0900 h), or at night (2100 h), in particular, to determine whether the early morning blood pressure rise, the duration of effect and the pattern of response differed.
                Twenty male patients with diastolic blood pressure 95-110 mmHg when seated and 24 h mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure > 85 mmHg after 4 weeks' placebo were allocated randomly to be administered 4 mg perindopril at 0900 h or at 2100 h. Clinic blood pressure (with the patient seated and erect) was measured 2 and 4 weeks after the therapy had been started and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring with a SpaceLabs device was performed for 26 h during week 4. The patients then crossed over to the other time of dosage and the measurements were repeated. The study was conducted from a hospital clinic.
                The clinic analysis concerned all 20 patients but the ambulatory analysis concerned 18 patients because the ambulatory blood pressure monitor data sets were inadequate for two patients. Compliance was high (97 +/- 3%), with a suggestion that it was better with the 0900 h dose. Clinic blood pressure (with the patient seated and erect) was lower under both regimes and the blood pressure with night-time administration of perindopril tended to be lower than that with daytime administration (P = 0.05-0.10). Twenty-four-hour mean, daytime and night-time means were lower with both doses than they were with placebo and did not differ. Both regimes reduced the early morning peak blood pressure rise and the effect tended to be greater with the 2100 h dose (P = 0.05-0.10). The 0900 h dose had an effect that persisted for > 24 h but the effect of the 2100 h dose had dissipated 18 h after the dose. There was no excessive night-time fall in blood pressure with the 2100 h dose. The trough : peak ratio with the 0900 h dose was 0.86 for systolic and 0.70 for diastolic blood pressure.
                The early morning blood pressure rise is reduced more when 4 mg perindopril is administered at 2100 h. However, the 2100 h dose regime does not reduce blood pressure over 24 h whereas 24 h control is achieved with the 0900 h dose. In clinical practice the 2100 h dose would have been titrated to the next dose range in more patients. This study indicates that the response profile obtained with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor cannot be transformed from one dose time to another automatically and that chronobiology has important effects on a drug's action. Many hypertensive patients require combination therapy to achieve target blood pressure (BP). beta-Blockers and dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers are effective as monotherapy in hypertensive patients and have complementary mechanisms for lowering BP.
                This multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, unbalanced factorial study included a 4- to 5-week single-blind placebo, 9-week, double-blind treatment as well as a 2-week double-blind, down-titration period. Patients (N = 1092) were randomized to one of 16 treatment groups: extended-release (ER) metoprolol succinate (25, 100, or 400 mg), ER felodipine (2.5, 10, or 20 mg), ER felodipine/ER metoprolol succinate (2.5/25, 2.5/100, 2.5/400, 10/25, 10/100, 10/400, 20/25, 20/100, or 20/400 mg), or placebo.
                At baseline, treatment groups were well balanced; mean sitting BP was 152.6/99.9 mm Hg. Monotherapy with ER metoprolol succinate induced dose-related reductions in sitting systolic/diastolic BP (DBP) (mean 8.1/7.7 to 9.7/11.1 mm Hg) as did ER felodipine (mean 7.7/7.7 to 14.0/11.8) and the combinations reflected additive effects (mean 13.8/11.0 to 19.8/15.2). The decline in the placebo group was 2.1/4.0 mm Hg. All combinations were more effective than their components (P < .05 for all but ER metoprolol succinate 25/ER felodipine 20). When compared with the highest doses of the individual agents (ER metoprolol succinate 400 mg; ER felodipine 20 mg), the low-dose combination ER metoprolol succinate 25/ER felodipine 2.5 was approximately as effective (differences in DBP <1 mm Hg). The most common adverse events leading to discontinuation were peripheral edema (4%), headache (2%), and fatigue (1%). Higher rates of peripheral edema and flushing were associated with high-dose ER felodipine, either alone or in combination.
                The antihypertensive effects of ER metoprolol succinate and ER felodipine are dose-related, and when given in combination, their BP-lowering effects are additive over a wide dose range. Low-dose combination therapy is comparable in effectiveness to high-dose monotherapy but is better tolerated. Diabetes is the most common cause of renal failure in the United States, and data regarding the effects of aggressive blood pressure (BP) therapy in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes are inadequate.
                A total of 129 type 2 diabetic patients with a BP of <140/80 to 90 mm Hg without overt albuminuria were randomized to either intensive BP control (diastolic BP goal 75 mm Hg) using an angiotensin II receptor blocker, valsartan, versus moderate BP control (diastolic BP 80 to 90 mm Hg with placebo initially) to evaluate the effect on the change in urinary albumin excretion (UAE) from baseline.
                The mean entrance BP was 126 +/- 8.8/84 +/- 2.4 mm Hg. The mean follow-up period was 1.9 +/- 1.0 years. During the follow-up period, the mean BP was 118 +/- 10.9/75 +/- 5.7 for the intensive v 124 10.9/80 6.5 mm Hg for the moderate BP groups (P < .001). No difference was observed in change in creatinine clearance or serum creatinine from baseline between the two groups. An analysis of covariance model for change in log (UAE + 1), adjusting for age, HBA(1c), duration of diabetes, baseline log (UAE + 1), sex, and ethnicity resulted in a significant treatment difference at 2 years (P = .007) with intensive BP control reducing log (UAE+1) compared with moderate BP control.
                Intensive BP control with valsartan to <120/80 mm Hg in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes and normo- or microalbuminuria significantly decreased the progression of UAE and in some cases caused regression of UAE. Tasosartan, a new, long-acting, nonpeptide angiotensin II receptor antagonist was evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial at 21 sites in the United States and Canada. After a 2-week, placebo washout qualification period, 278 patients (187 men/91 women) with a mean age of 53.4+/-9.5 years (range, 30 to 70 years) and a baseline sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 95 to 114 mm Hg were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 56), or 10 mg (n = 57), 30 mg (n = 55), 100 mg (n = 55), or 300 mg (n = 55) tasosartan for 4 weeks. The treatment period was followed by a 2-week washout period. Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring was performed at the end of the placebo washout period and after at least 4 weeks of double-blind treatment. Clinically significant placebo-adjusted differences in baseline sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP)/DBP were observed in the 10 mg (5/3 mm Hg), 30 mg (5/4 mm Hg), 100 mg (10/7 mm Hg) and 300 mg (10/7 mm Hg) dose groups (P < .05). A dose-response relationship (P < .001) was observed within 1 to 2 weeks of treatment initiation and was maintained throughout the double-blind period. Discontinuation of tasosartan therapy was not associated with rebound hypertension. Moreover, significant (P < .05) placebo-adjusted differences in ambulatory SBP/DBP and a significant dose-response relationship (P < .001) were observed with all tasosartan dosages during the 24-h, daytime, and nighttime periods. Placebo-adjusted trough-to-peak ratios ranged from 87% to 100% for ambulatory SBP and 64% to 81% for DBP. In general, no significant differences were observed between the tasosartan treatment groups and the placebo group in the incidence of adverse events. Headache incidence was significantly lower in the 300 mg dose group than the placebo group. In conclusion, tasosartan at dosages of 10, 30, 100, or 300 mg given once daily produced a significant and dose-related reduction in both clinic and ambulatory BP that was maintained over the 24-h period. Tasosartan was generally well tolerated. To evaluate the effect on cardiac hemodynamic parameters of valsartan in patients with chronic stable congestive heart failure previously untreated with ACE inhibitors.
                After a 2 to 4 week run-in period, 116 adult outpatients were randomized to receive valsartan 40, 80 or 160 mg twice daily, the ACE inhibitor lisinopril 5/10 mg once daily, or placebo. At baseline and after 28 days of treatment, cardiac hemodynamic parameters were measured. Tolerability was assessed by adverse events and by any changes in systolic or diastolic blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, and routine laboratory parameters.
                For the 12 hour time point (trough), all doses of valsartan reduced mean pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (statistically significant for valsartan 40 mg and 160 mg), decreased systemic vascular resistance (statistically significant for all three valsartan doses and for lisinopril at peak and trough), and increased cardiac output (statistically significant for all three valsartan doses at peak, and for 80 and 160 mg at trough). There were no clinically relevant effects on any safety parameters.
                Valsartan has beneficial effects on cardiac hemodynamics, and is generally well tolerated in patients with congestive heart failure not taking ACE inhibitors. Although the angiotensin receptor antagonist (ARB) shares the angiotensin-II-blocking activity with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I), pharmacological mechanisms of action of these agents differ. We evaluated the temporal profiles of action of ACE-I and ARB on urinary protein excretion and nitrate/nitrate (NO(x)) excretion in hypertensive (140 and/or 90 mmHg) patients with chronic renal disease (serum creatinine < 265 (range, 44-265) micromol/l or creatinine clearance > 30 (range, 30-121) ml/min). Patients with mild (<1 g/day; range, 0.4-1.0) and moderate proteinuria (>1 g/day; range, 1.1-6.9) were randomly assigned to ACE-I- and ARB-treated groups, and were treated with ACE-I (trandolapril or perindopril) or ARB(losartan or candesartan) for 48 weeks. In all groups, treatment with ACE-I or ARB decreased blood pressure to the same level, but had no effect on creatinine clearance. In patients with mild proteinuria, neither ACE-I nor ARB altered urinary protein excretion. In patients with moderate proteinuria, ACE-I caused 44 +/- 6% reduction in proteinuria (from 2.7 +/- 0.5 to 1.5 +/- 0.4 g/day, n = 14) at 12 weeks, and this beneficial effect persisted throughout the protocol (48 weeks, 1.2 +/- 0.2 g/day). In contrast, ARB did not produce a significant decrease in proteinuria at 12 weeks (23 +/- 8%, n = 13), but a 41 +/- 6% reduction in proteinuria was observed at 48 weeks. Similarly, although early (12 weeks) increases in urinary NO(x) excretion were observed with ACE-I (from 257 +/- 70 to 1111 +/- 160 micromol/day) and ARB (from 280 +/- 82 to 723 +/- 86 micromol/day), the ARB-induced increase in NO(x) excretion was smaller than that by ACE-I (P < 0.05). In conclusion, although both ACE-I and ARB reduce blood pressure similarly, the effect of these agents on proteinuria differs in chronic renal disease with moderate proteinuria. Relatively early onset of the proteinuria-reducing effect was observed with ACE-I, which paralleled the increase in urinary NO(x) excretion. Conversely, ARB decreased proteinuria and increased urinary NO(x) excretion gradually. These time course-dependent changes in proteinuria and urinary NO(x) may reflect the pharmacological property of ACE-I and ARB, with regard to the action on bradykinin. We assessed blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) responses in a double-blind, randomized study comparing cilazapril, a long-acting, nonsulfhydryl-group converting enzyme inhibitor, with placebo in 18 patients with mild to moderate (sitting diastolic BP, 95 to 114 mm Hg) essential hypertension. The BP and HR parameters were evaluated at rest (casual, 24 hours after administration), during treadmill exercise testing (Bruce protocol), and with 24-hour noninvasive ambulatory BP monitoring. These assessments were made after a 4-week drug washout period and after 8 to 12 weeks of therapy. After 8 weeks of therapy with cilazapril (mean dose 3.6 +/- 0.9 mg/day), casual BP decreased 19/11 mm Hg (p less than 0.01), whereas placebo lowered BP by 4/5 mm Hg (difference not significant) compared with the baseline period. The casual HR was modestly (7 beats/min) but significantly (p less than 0.05) lowered by cilazapril monotherapy. Exercise BP was reduced by cilazapril (reduction at peak HR, 23/11 +/- 10/5 mm Hg; p less than 0.05), and exercise HR was unchanged. Compared with baseline, the duration of exercise was improved with cilazapril but not with placebo (1.0 minute vs -0.2 minute; p less than 0.05). Twenty-four-hour mean, awake, and sleep BPs were reduced with cilazapril with the most impressive reduction occurring during the awake period (19/12 mm Hg; p less than 0.01). These data demonstrate that cilazapril lowers casual, exercise, and ambulatory BP with a modest but significant improvement in exercise time. Thus cilazapril may be particularly effective in the physically active hypertensive patient. Weight loss, sodium reduction, increased physical activity, and limited alcohol intake are established recommendations that reduce blood pressure (BP). The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet also lowers BP. To date, no trial has evaluated the effects of simultaneously implementing these lifestyle recommendations.
                To determine the effect on BP of 2 multicomponent, behavioral interventions.
                Randomized trial with enrollment at 4 clinical centers (January 2000-June 2001) among 810 adults (mean [SD] age, 50 [8.9] years; 62% women; 34% African American) with above-optimal BP, including stage 1 hypertension (120-159 mm Hg systolic and 80-95 mm Hg diastolic), and who were not taking antihypertensive medications.
                Participants were randomized to one of 3 intervention groups: (1) "established," a behavioral intervention that implemented established recommendations (n = 268); (2) "established plus DASH,"which also implemented the DASH diet (n = 269); and (3) an "advice only" comparison group (n = 273).
                Blood pressure measurement and hypertension status at 6 months.
                Both behavioral interventions significantly reduced weight, improved fitness, and lowered sodium intake. The established plus DASH intervention also increased fruit, vegetable, and dairy intake. Across the groups, gradients in BP and hypertensive status were evident. After subtracting change in advice only, the mean net reduction in systolic BP was 3.7 mm Hg (P<.001) in the established group and 4.3 mm Hg (P<.001) in the established plus DASH group; the systolic BP difference between the established and established plus DASH groups was 0.6 mm Hg (P =.43). Compared with the baseline hypertension prevalence of 38%, the prevalence at 6 months was 26% in the advice only group, 17% in the established group (P =.01 compared with the advice only group), and 12% in the established plus DASH group (P<.001 compared with the advice only group; P =.12 compared with the established group). The prevalence of optimal BP (<120 mm Hg systolic and <80 mm Hg diastolic) was 19% in the advice only group, 30% in the established group (P =.005 compared with the advice only group), and 35% in the established plus DASH group (P<.001 compared with the advice only group; P =.24 compared with the established group).
                Individuals with above-optimal BP, including stage 1 hypertension, can make multiple lifestyle changes that lower BP and reduce their cardiovascular disease risk. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study recruited 170 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension from nine centers. After a 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in phase, patients were randomized in a double-blind fashion to four parallel groups that received either placebo or 0.5, 1, or 2 mg trandolapril for 4 weeks. Treatment was administered as a once-daily dose in the morning and blood pressure was measured 24 h after drug intake. The primary criterion of efficacy was a decrease in supine diastolic blood pressure. At the end of the study, the lowest dose of trandolapril that consistently produced a significant difference from placebo in reducing blood pressure was 1 mg (-6.6 mm Hg for supine diastolic blood pressure). It was effective from around 2 weeks onward; the 2-mg dose differed significantly from placebo from around 1 week onward. At the end of the study, the 1- and 2-mg doses were equally effective. The lowest dose tested, 0.5 mg, showed some evidence of an effect on systolic blood pressure and may well prove to be a useful dose in patients who are highly sensitive to the effect of ACE inhibition. Tolerance throughout the study was good for all doses tested. Our aim was to compare the effect of lacidipine and chlorthalidone on cardiovascular outcome as a primary parameter and blood pressure as a secondary in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension in a prospective study with an open design.
                1882 males and females outpatients > or = 60 years were randomly assigned to the administration of chlorthalidone 12.5 mg o.d. or lacidipine 4 mg o.d. Patients were recruited if sitting systolic blood pressure was > or = 160 mmHg with a diastolic blood pressure equal or lower than 95 mmHg. Primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events.
                At randomization mean systolic blood pressure was 178.1 mmHg in the lacidipine and 178.2 mmHg in the chlorthalidone group, the corresponding mean diastolic values being 86.9 and 86.8 mmHg. In both lacidipine and chlorthalidone groups treatment caused a significant (p < 0.001) and marked systolic blood pressure reduction which was maintained throughout the treatment period with a significant (p < 0.001) and steady although less marked reduction in diastolic blood pressure as well. At the end of treatment period (median 32 months), the reduction was 36.8/8.1 mmHg (systolic/diastolic) in the chlorthalidone and 38.4/7.9 mmHg in the lacidipine group, the final on treatment blood pressures being 142.0/79.2 and 143.2/79.5 mmHg, respectively. Treatments were similarly effective in males and females and in age groups between 60 and 69 years (n = 763), 70 and 79 years (n = 744) and > or = 80 years (n = 375). Similar reductions were obtained in a subgroup of patients (n = 209) followed in double-blind fashion for 1 year. The overall incidence of the primary endpoints was 9.3% with no significant between-group difference. Total mortality was also similar between groups.
                In elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension, administration of lacidipine or chlorthalidone markedly reduced systolic blood pressure with no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events and total mortality. This multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study compared the antihypertensive effects of equal doses of two long-acting angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. After a two-week, placebo run-in phase, 110 patients with mild to moderate hypertension were randomised to receive 10 mg lisinopril or enalapril, or placebo for 4 weeks. Office BPs were measured at regular intervals throughout the study. Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) was measured at baseline and after the first and final doses of study drug. Serum ACE activity and aldosterone were obtained concomitantly with each ABP monitoring. Office BP differences from placebo reached (P less than 0.05) or approached (P less than 0.10) statistical significance at all observations for the lisinopril group but were not significant for any observation in the enalapril group and approached significance on two occasions. After four weeks of treatment, ABP analysis revealed that the lisinopril and enalapril groups, when compared with placebo, had similar and significant systolic and diastolic AUC reductions (P less than 0.01) from baseline over the 24 h dosing interval. During the second half of the dosing interval, 13-24 h post drug administration, the lisinopril group was significantly different from placebo (systolic BP, P = 0.002; diastolic BP, P = 0.005) while the enalapril group was not. Both drugs were well tolerated. The results indicate that monotherapy with 10 mg of lisinopril is as effective as with 10 mg of enalapril, and that ABP monitoring is useful in more precisely depicting the clinical effect of the known pharmacokinetic properties of these two agents. This study was undertaken to test the hypothesis that, given equal arterial pressure reductions, the combination of an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and calcium antagonist slows declines in renal function and yields greater reductions in albuminuria over either agent alone. This hypothesis was evaluated in four groups of hypertensive, non-insulin dependent, diabetic subjects with renal insufficiency (N = 30). Renal hemodynamics, albuminuria and metabolic parameters were evaluated for a period of one year. Subjects were all placed on a 90 mEq sodium, 0.8 g/kg protein, 1500 calorie American Diabetes Association diet for the entire length of the study. Subjects were followed for two weeks off antihypertensive medications and were subsequently randomized to either lisinopril, alone (group I), sustained release verapamil, alone (group II), reduced doses of both lisinopril and sustained release verapamil (group III), and hydrochlorothiazide with guanfacine (group IV). At the end of one year group III had the greatest reduction in albuminuria (78 +/- 7%, group III vs. 59% +/- 4, group I: P less than 0.05). In addition, the decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was the lowest in this group (0.28 +/- 0.07, group III vs. 0.69 +/- 0.12, group I; P less than 0.05) although there was no significant difference between groups II and IV. The highest side effect profiles were noted in group IV, the least in group III. The greatest reductions in renal hemodynamics occurred in all groups within the first month; however, striking differences between groups were noted (7.4 +/- 2%, group I vs. 1.4 +/- 2%, group III; P less than 0.05). We conclude that the combination of reduced doses of an ACE inhibitor and calcium antagonist attenuate both albuminuria and the rate of decline in glomerular filtration rate. Furthermore, the combination of these classes of agents appear to yield the lowest side effect profile over either agent alone. Lastly, high doses of ACE inhibition alone may be detrimental to renal function in late stage diabetics with renal insufficiency. In a double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of the fixed combination of 5 mg ramipril and 6 mg piretanide and the respective component monotherapies in hypertensive patients [supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 100-114 mm Hg]. After a single-blind run-in period on placebo, 611 patients were randomized to ramipril (n = 209), piretanide (n = 201), or the combination therapy (n = 201). At randomization, the three groups had the same characteristics (51% men, age 55 +/- 10 years, BP 165 +/- 18/104 +/- 6 mm Hg). At 4 weeks, BP decreased more with combined therapy than with monotherapy. As compared with piretanide monotherapy, the gain in the antihypertensive effect in the supine position averaged 2.1 mm Hg [90% confidence interval (CI) -0.8-5.0 mm Hg; p = 0.07] systolic BP (SBP) and 1.9 mm Hg (CI 0.3-3.5 mm Hg, p = 0.02) DBP and, as compared with ramipril monotherapy, these differences were 4.2 mm Hg (CI 1.3-7.0 mm Hg, p = 0.008) and 2.0 mm Hg (CI 0.5-3.6 mm Hg, p = 0.009). The incidence of adverse events (AE) and the changes in biochemical measurements were similar in the three treatment groups with the exception of spontaneously reported polyuria and serum uric acid concentration. Polyuria was reported more frequently (p < 0.001) with piretanide therapy (n = 23) and combined therapy (n = 19) than with ramipril therapy (n = 1).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) The time to peak antihypertensive effect and the trough-to-peak ratio were determined in 64 Caucasian patients (19 men, 45 women) with mild to moderate hypertension [supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95 to 115 mmHg]. They received placebo or fosinopril 10, 20, or 40 mg once daily for 4 weeks. The study consisted of a 4-week placebo lead-in, 4 weeks' double-blind treatment, and a 1-week placebo washout period. Vital signs were determined biweekly before dosing, and blood pressures were measured every 1 to 2 h during two 27-h periods at the beginning and end of treatment. After the first and last doses of all three regimens, the peak effect on blood pressure occurred 5 to 7 h after all three dosages. Neither peak nor trough blood pressure changes showed a clear dose-response relationship. Trough to peak ratios for the first dose, corrected for placebo effects, were 79% for fosinopril 10 mg, 48% for fosinopril 20 mg, and 74% for fosinopril 40 mg, and the trough-to-peak ratios for the last dose were 41% for fosinopril 10 mg, 32% for fosinopril 20 mg, and 44% for fosinopril 40 mg. In the 38 responders among the 48 patients receiving fosinopril (supine DBP decrease of at least 5 mmHg at 24 h postdose), trough-to-peak ratios ranged from 50 to 81%, and the range indicates that fosinopril is efficacious when administered once daily. Adverse effects were mild to moderate, and no patient discontinued treatment. Changes in the laboratory test results, electrocardiograms, or the results of physical examinations were unremarkable.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) To study the effects of ACE-i in type 1 diabetic patients with early microalbuminuria with regard to: i) UAE, ii) 24 h AMBP, including the effect on diurnal BP variation, and iii) renal haemodynamics.
                58 patients with urinary albumin excretion (UAE) between 20-70 microg/min were treated for two years with either the ACE inhibitor (ACE-i) lisinopril (20 mg od) or placebo in two randomised placebo controlled double blind studies. In a subgroup of patients (n=22) we performed 24 h ambulatory blood pressure measurements (AMBP) and renal function tests (constant infusion technique).
                i) Changes in UAE over the two years were significantly different (p<0.01) in the two groups with final UAE in the lisinopril group of 19.1 microg/min x/divide 2.5 (geometric mean x/divide tolerance factor) and 44.1 microg/min x/divide 2.8 in the placebo group. In the lisinopril group 20 patients (60.6%) reversed to normoalbuminuria compared to 6 patients (24%) in the placebo group (p<0.02). ii) Clinical BP measurements revealed no differences between groups, but by AMBP significant reductions were detectable in the lisinopril group, primarily in night AMBP (systolic/diastolic: - 6.9 +/- 8.6/- 6.0 +/- 5.3 mmHg, p<0.01) as opposed to increases in the placebo group (3.1 +/- 9.3/1.9 +/- 7.3 mmHg). iii) Changes in UAE and changes in filtration fraction (FF) were positively correlated in the intervention group (r=0.9, p<0.01), i.e. the patients who showed the greatest fall in UAE were the ones with the greatest fall in FF.
                ACE-i treatment in patients with low-grade microalbuminuria reduces 24 h AMBP without attenuating diurnal blood pressure variation, reduces UAE significantly, with changes in UAE being strongly associated with changes in FF. Furthermore, compared to placebo, ACE-i reverses micro- to normoalbuminuria in a significant fraction of patients. To investigate the concept of initiating therapy with low doses of a calcium antagonist and an ACE inhibitor, a fixed combination of isradipine 2.5 mg plus the ACE inhibitor spirapril 3 mg was compared with its components, with the full-dose monotherapies (isradipine 5 mg or spirapril 6 mg), and with placebo. After a 2-week wash out phase in pretreated patients and a subsequent 2-week placebo period, 405 patients with a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between 100 and 114 mmHg were randomly allocated to 12-week once-daily double-blind treatment in one of the six treatment arms. In patients whose blood pressure was not normalized (defined as DBP< or =90 mmHg) after 6 weeks of treatment, the dosage of either medication was doubled or, in the placebo group, was switched to the fixed combination. After week 6, the mean reductions from baseline in sitting systolic/diastolic blood pressure 24 hours after dosing (trough) for the fixed combination or the monotherapies isradipine 5 mg, isradipine 2.5 mg, spirapril 6 mg, spirapril 3 mg, and placebo were 10.4/8.7, 10.0/9.4, 6.5/6.7, 10.0/8.3, 7.0/5.8, and 2.2/4.7 mmHg, respectively. The blood pressure changes obtained with the low-dose fixed combination were essentially identical to those observed with the full-dose monotherapies, thus showing an additive effect of low-dose isradipine and spirapril. In terms of tolerability, the lowest rate of any adverse events was found in the combination group. In this group, typical adverse events of calcium antagonists, such as headache, flushing, ankle edema, or palpitations, were observed only in 5%, 2%, 1%, and 0%, respectively, dry cough, considered typical for ACE inhibitors, was observed in only 1% of the combination group. In conclusion, the low-dose components isradipine 2.5 mg and spirapril 3 mg were shown to have an additive effect when combined, exerting a blood pressure-lowering effect comparable with the full doses and a trend to a better tolerability profile in comparison with the standard doses. Thus, low-dose combination therapy with these drugs appears to be a rational alternative to conventional monotherapy in the first-line treatment of hypertension. In chronic nephropathies, inhibition of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) is renoprotective, but can further renoprotection be achieved by reduction of blood pressure to lower than usual targets? We aimed to assess the effect of intensified versus conventional blood-pressure control on progression to end-stage renal disease.
                We undertook a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of patients with non-diabetic proteinuric nephropathies receiving background treatment with the ACE inhibitor ramipril (2.5-5 mg/day). We randomly assigned participants either conventional (diastolic <90 mm Hg; n=169) or intensified (systolic/diastolic <130/80 mm Hg; n=169) blood-pressure control. To achieve the intensified blood-pressure level, patients received add-on therapy with the dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker felodipine (5-10 mg/day). The primary outcome measure was time to end-stage renal disease over 36 months' follow-up, and analysis was by intention to treat.
                Of 338 patients who were randomised, three (two assigned intensified and one allocated conventional blood-pressure control) never took study drugs and they were excluded. Over a median follow-up of 19 months (IQR 12-35), 38/167 (23%) patients assigned to intensified blood-pressure control and 34/168 (20%) allocated conventional control progressed to end-stage renal disease (hazard ratio 1.00 [95% CI 0.61-1.64]; p=0.99).
                In patients with non-diabetic proteinuric nephropathies receiving background ACE-inhibitor therapy, no additional benefit from further blood-pressure reduction by felodipine could be shown. Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors improve outcome of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). A substantial proportion of patients, however, experience no benefit from ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance. We aimed to find out whether candesartan, an angiotensin-receptor blocker, could improve outcome in such patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
                Between March, 1999, and March, 2001, we enrolled 2028 patients with symptomatic heart failure and left-ventricular ejection fraction 40% or less who were not receiving ACE inhibitors because of previous intolerance. Patients were randomly assigned candesartan (target dose 32 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary outcome of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                The most common manifestation of ACE-inhibitor intolerance was cough (72%), followed by symptomatic hypotension (13%) and renal dysfunction (12%). During a median follow-up of 33.7 months, 334 (33%) of 1013 patients in the candesartan group and 406 (40%) of 1015 in the placebo group had cardiovascular death or hospital admission for CHF (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.77 [95% CI 0.67-0.89], p=0.0004; covariate adjusted 0.70 [0.60-0.81], p<0.0001). Each component of the primary outcome was reduced, as was the total number of hospital admissions for CHF. Study-drug discontinuation rates were similar in the candesartan (30%) and placebo (29%) groups.
                Candesartan was generally well tolerated and reduced cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure and intolerance to ACE inhibitors. There is much uncertainty about the effects of early lowering of elevated blood pressure (BP) after acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). Our aim was to assess the safety and efficiency of this treatment, as a run-in phase to a larger trial.
                Patients who had acute spontaneous ICH diagnosed by CT within 6 h of onset, elevated systolic BP (150-220 mm Hg), and no definite indication or contraindication to treatment were randomly assigned to early intensive lowering of BP (target systolic BP 140 mm Hg; n=203) or standard guideline-based management of BP (target systolic BP 180 mm Hg; n=201). The primary efficacy endpoint was proportional change in haematoma volume at 24 h; secondary efficacy outcomes included other measurements of haematoma volume. Safety and clinical outcomes were assessed for up to 90 days. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00226096.
                Baseline characteristics of patients were similar between groups, but mean haematoma volumes were smaller in the guideline group (12.7 mL, SD 11.6) than in the intensive group (14.2 mL, SD 14.5). From randomisation to 1 h, mean systolic BP was 153 mm Hg in the intensive group and 167 mm Hg in the guideline group (difference 13.3 mm Hg, 95% CI 8.9-17.6 mm Hg; p<0.0001); from 1 h to 24 h, BP was 146 mm Hg in the intensive group and 157 mm Hg in the guideline group (10.8 mm Hg, 95% CI 7.7-13.9 mm Hg; p<0.0001). Mean proportional haematoma growth was 36.3% in the guideline group and 13.7% in the intensive group (difference 22.6%, 95% CI 0.6-44.5%; p=0.04) at 24 h. After adjustment for initial haematoma volume and time from onset to CT, median haematoma growth differed between the groups with p=0.06; the absolute difference in volume between groups was 1.7 mL (95% CI -0.5 to 3.9, p=0.13). Relative risk of haematoma growth >or=33% or >or=12.5 mL was 36% lower (95% CI 0-59%, p=0.05) in the intensive group than in the guideline group. The absolute risk reduction was 8% (95% CI -1.0 to 17%, p=0.05). Intensive BP-lowering treatment did not alter the risks of adverse events or secondary clinical outcomes at 90 days.
                Early intensive BP-lowering treatment is clinically feasible, well tolerated, and seems to reduce haematoma growth in ICH. A large randomised trial is needed to define the effects on clinical outcomes across a broad range of patients with ICH.
                National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been shown to slow the progression of chronic renal failure. However, the value of ACE inhibitors for the treatment of hypertension in renal allograft recipients has not been established. ACE inhibitors dilate the efferent glomerular arteriole, an effect that may aggravate the decrease in glomerular filtration rate resulting from cyclosporine-induced vasoconstriction at the afferent glomerular arteriole. Therefore, the goal of this double-blind, randomized study was to compare the antihypertensive and renal effects of the ACE inhibitor quinapril with those of the beta-blocker atenolol in renal allograft recipients in whom hypertension developed 6 to 12 weeks after transplantation. All patients received cyclosporine as an immunosuppressant and had stable graft function (serum creatinine concentration, <220 micromol/L) at entry into the study. Twenty-nine patients who received quinapril (daily dose titrated between 2.5 and 20 mg) and 30 patients who received atenolol (daily dose titrated between 12.5 and 100 mg) completed the 24-month study. The two groups did not differ in age, sex ratio, height, and weight before entry into the study. Quinapril decreased diastolic blood pressure from 96+/-1 to 84+/-1 mm Hg (average throughout treatment period), and atenolol decreased diastolic blood pressure from 96+/-1 to 83+/-1 mm Hg. The serum creatinine concentration did not change significantly in either group after 24 months (129+/-8 micromol/L at entry and 148+/-19 micromol/L after 24 months in the quinapril group and 131+/-6 micromol/L at entry and 152+/-15 micromol/L after 24 months in the atenolol group; P=NS for both groups). After 24 months, the change in urinary albumin excretion from baseline was -10+/-15 mg/d in the quinapril group and 52+/-32 mg/d in the atenolol group (P=0.03). These results show that quinapril and atenolol are effective antihypertensive drugs when used after renal transplantation. Moreover, compared with atenolol, quinapril has no adverse effects on graft function. The relative reduction in albuminuria observed with quinapril as compared with atenolol could indicate a beneficial effect of quinapril on long-term graft function. Recent studies utilizing converting enzyme inhibitors (CEI) in diabetic rats document reductions in both renal hypertrophy and albuminuria. Four separate clinical studies in normotensive patients with diabetes demonstrate reduction of microalbuminuria with CEIs independent of blood pressure reduction. The present pilot study examines the results of reducing an elevated glomerular filtration rate on changes in renal size and microalbuminuria in normotensive, hyperfiltering insulin-dependent diabetic (IDDM) patients. Fifteen IDDM patients were randomized to either placebo or the CEI, lisinopril. Dosage of lisinopril was titrated over 3 months to reduce glomerular filtration rate (GFR) to < or = 2.33 mL/sec. Evaluation at 18 months demonstrated the lisinopril group had a marked reduction in renal size (16.9 +/- 1.1, baseline versus 12.8 +/- 0.9 cm, 18 months; p < 0.05) and microalbuminuria (92 +/- 11 micrograms/min, baseline versus 23 +/- 26 micrograms/min, 18 months; p < 0.05). No change in renal size was noted in the placebo group (15.4 +/- 0.8, baseline versus 14.9 +/- 0.7 cm, 18 months; NS) and albuminuria increased (118 +/- 15 micrograms/min, baseline versus 293 +/- 32 micrograms/min, 18 months; p < 0.05). Mean arterial pressure at 18 months was significantly lower in the lisinopril group compared to placebo (102 +/- 4, placebo versus 87 +/- 6 mm Hg, CEI, p < 0.05). This study supports previous animal studies that document reductions in both microalbuminuria and renal size by a CEI. The overall impact of these findings on preservation of renal function cannot be assessed, however, in this short-term study. The objectives of this double-blind, multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled study were to evaluate the dose-related efficacy, tolerability, and safety of candesartan cilexetil, a potent, AT1 selective, long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker, in 365 adult patients with systemic hypertension and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 95 to 114 mm Hg. Patients received either placebo or candesartan cilexetil 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32 mg once daily for 8 weeks. All doses of candesartan cilexetil reduced trough (24 hours after treatment) sitting diastolic and systolic BP significantly compared with placebo (p < 0.005). A significant (p < or = 0.0001) dose response was evident, with greater decreases in BP at higher doses. Mean changes in BP were -10.7/-7.8 mm Hg and -12.6/-10.2 mm Hg in the 16- and 32-mg groups, respectively, versus -0.3/-2.6 mm Hg in the placebo group. The 16- and 32-mg doses were consistently significantly superior to placebo in antihypertensive effect with regard to all BP measurements, including peak (6 hours after treatment), trough, sitting, and standing measurements of diastolic and systolic BP. Responder rates (trough sitting diastolic BP < 90 or > or = 10 mm Hg BP decrease) were 54% and 64% for the 16- and 32-mg groups, respectively. Tolerability and safety profiles were similar to placebo at all doses. In conclusion, candesartan cilexetil administered once daily effectively reduces BP in a dose-related manner while maintaining safety and tolerability; doses of 16 and 32 mg are most effective for treatment of hypertension. Patients with reduced renal function are at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes. In the post-myocardial infarction setting, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been shown to be as effective in patients with impaired renal function as in those with preserved renal function.
                We assessed the relation between renal function and outcomes, the influence of ACE inhibition on this relation, and whether renal function modifies the effectiveness of ACE inhibition in patients with stable coronary artery disease and preserved systolic function enrolled in the Prevention of Events with ACE inhibition trial (PEACE). Patients (n=8290) were randomly assigned to receive trandolapril (target, 4 mg/d) or placebo. Clinical creatinine measures were available for 8280 patients before randomization. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated with the 4-point Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation. Renal function was related to outcomes, and the influence of ACE-inhibitor therapy was assessed with formal interaction modeling. The mean eGFR in PEACE was 77.6+/-19.4, and 1355 (16.3%) patients had reduced renal function (eGFR <60 mg.mL(-1).1.73 m(-2)). We observed a significant interaction between eGFR and treatment group with respect to cardiovascular and all-cause mortality (P=0.02). Trandolapril was associated with a reduction in total mortality in patients with reduced renal function (adjusted HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.00) but not in patients with preserved renal function (adjusted HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.13).
                Although trandolapril did not improve survival in the overall PEACE cohort, in which mean eGFR was relatively high, trandolapril reduced mortality in patients with reduced eGFR. These data suggest that reduced renal function may define a subset of patients most likely to benefit from ACE-inhibitor therapy for cardiovascular protection. The primary objectives of this double-blind study were to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan and losartan, two angiotensin II (AT1 subtype) receptor antagonists with different pharmacokinetic profiles in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Both drugs are approved for once-daily use (although losartan may also be prescribed twice-daily). After a placebo lead-in, 567 patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to once-daily therapy with placebo, 100 mg losartan, 150 mg irbesartan, or 300 mg irbesartan for 8 weeks. Treatment groups had comparable demographic and baseline characteristics. After 8 weeks of treatment, reductions from baseline in trough seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) and trough seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) with 300 mg irbesartan were greater than with 100 mg losartan (P < .01 for both comparisons), by 3.0 and 5.1 mm Hg, respectively; larger reductions were also demonstrated at weeks 1 and 4 (P < .01 and P = .017, respectively, for SeDBP). Throughout the study, the antihypertensive effect of 150 mg irbesartan did not differ significantly from that of 100 mg losartan. All therapies were well tolerated. The 300 mg dose of irbesartan was associated with the lowest incidence of adverse events (AE) and discontinuations because of AE. This study demonstrates that the maximally effective once-daily doses of two different AT1 receptor antagonists may result in clinically significant differences in blood pressure reductions, and therefore highlights the potential importance of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences between these two members of this class. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of celiprolol, a new beta-blocking drug, on the clinical condition and pulmonary function of hypertensive patients with reversible bronchial obstruction. Celiprolol was compared with chlorthalidone, an antihypertensive drug without known effect on bronchial tone. The study consisted of a 4-week placebo run-in period and a 12-week titration period in which the dose of both drugs was increased at 4-week intervals if blood pressure was not reduced adequately. The doses of celiprolol were 200, 400, or 600 mg once daily; those for chlorthalidone 12.5, 25, or 37.5 mg once daily. Entry criteria were a diastolic blood pressure between 90 and 115 mg Hg, and FEV-1 between 40% and 80% of predicted value, increasing by 15% or more after salbutamol, and a need for occasional bronchodilator therapy. Prophylactic medication for asthma was given in constant dosage for a month before the study and throughout the study. Preliminary results on 66 patients demonstrate that neither drug had a clinically significant effect on FEV-1, FEF 25-75, or FVC. Clinical variables were not significantly changed by either drug: the average monthly asthma attacks fell from 18 to 13 with celiprolol and from 11 to 7 with chlorthalidone. FEF was reduced by more than 50% in two patients on celiprolol and three on chlorthalidone. Monthly asthma attacks increased by more than 100% in five patients on celiprolol and four on chlorthalidone. Thus, preliminary results are unable to demonstrate adverse effects from celiprolol in patients with asthma and hypertension. This multicenter international trial recruited 205 patients from 16 investigators. After a 4-week, single-blind placebo run-in, patients were randomized to receive 16 weeks of trandolapril 2 mg/day (68 patients), hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg/day (68 patients), or the combination (69 patients). Morning predosing supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was the primary efficacy measurement. Intention-to-treat analysis showed significant decreases in all three groups in mean (+/- SEM) supine DBP throughout the study, with no significant differences at week 16 between trandolapril (-10.6 +/- 1.3 mm Hg) and HCTZ (-10.9 +/- 1.3 mm Hg). The combination gave a significantly greater reduction than either drug alone (-15.1 +/- 1.13 mm Hg). Blood pressure was normalized in the combination group in 67% of patients, a significantly higher proportion than either trandolapril (63%) or HCTZ (60%; p = 0.04). Each treatment was well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events was similar in all three groups. Trandolapril 2 mg once daily is an effective antihypertensive agent, comparable to HCTZ. Furthermore, the combination of the two drugs was shown to enhance the antihypertensive effect of the two compounds alone. Although nonpharmacologic interventions are widely recommended in the therapy of high blood pressure in older adults, surprisingly little data exist to confirm the efficacy of these interventions in older persons.
                We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial in persons aged 60 to 85 years with a diastolic blood pressure of 85 to 100 mm Hg. The experimental arm was a nonpharmacologic intervention combining weight reduction, sodium restriction, and increased physical activity. The nonpharmacologic intervention consisted of eight weekly group and two individual sessions during the intensive phase, followed by four monthly group sessions during the maintenance phase. The control group received no treatment during the study. Blood pressure was assessed by certified technicians (blinded to group assignment) using random zero sphygmomanometers.
                Of 56 participants randomized, 47 completed the entire 6-month trial (21 in the intervention group and 26 in the control group). Attendance at the intervention sessions was excellent. The intervention group lost more weight (-2.1 kg) over 6 months than the control group (+0.3 kg). Trends for decreasing 24-hour urine sodium excretion in both the intervention and control groups, with greater trend in the intervention group, were not statistically significant. The intervention group experienced more reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure than did the control group (mean differences between groups at 6 months, 4.2/4.9 mm Hg, respectively).
                Our data indicate that a nonpharmacologic intervention will lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels in older people with borderline or mild elevations of diastolic blood pressure. Some retrospective studies have suggested a beneficial influence of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors on the progression of IgA nephropathy (IgAN), but prospective and controlled studies demonstrating this effect are lacking. Forty-four patients with biopsy-proven IgAN, proteinuria > or = 0.5 g/d, and serum creatinine (SCr) < or = 1.5 mg/dl were randomly assigned either to receive enalapril (n = 23) or to a control group (n = 21) in whom BP was controlled with antihypertensives other than ACE inhibitors. Primary outcome was renal survival estimated by a 50% increase in baseline SCr. Secondary outcomes were the presence of a SCr > 1.5 mg/dl at the last visit and the evolution of proteinuria. Baseline clinical findings were similar at baseline between enalapril-treated and control group, and there were no differences in BP control during follow-up. Mean follow-up was 78 +/- 37 mo in the enalapril group and 74 +/- 36 mo in the control group. Three patients (13%) in the enalapril group and 12 (57%) in the control group reached the primary end point (P < 0.05). Kaplan-Meier renal survival was significantly better in enalapril group than in control group: 100% versus 70% after 4 yr and 92% versus 55% after 7 yr (P < 0.05). Three patients in the enalapril group (13%) and 11 (52%) in the control group showed SCr > 1.5 mg/dl at the last visit (P < 0.05). Proteinuria significantly decreased in the enalapril group, whereas it tended to increase in the control group (P < 0.001 between groups). In conclusion, ACE inhibitors significantly improve renal survival in proteinuric IgAN with normal or moderately reduced renal function. Ninety four patients with mild hypertension (average supine diastolic blood pressure (phase V) 95-110 mm Hg) were allocated at random to receive restriction of dietary sodium (maximum allowed 70 mmol(mEq)/24 h) or a normal diet. In addition, they received in random order 25 mg chlorthalidone, 200 mg metoprolol (slow release), and a fixed combination of these two drugs. Each drug treatment was given for four weeks and alternated with four weeks of placebo. Forty four patients were allocated to sodium restriction (group 1) and 50 to normal diet (group 2). The mean 24 hour urinary sodium excretion in group 1 was 74 (SD 31) mmol(mEq)/24 h, and in group 2 132 (51) mmol/24 h. Compared with the screening blood pressure the average decrement of the supine blood pressure in group 1 was 16.0/8.6 mm Hg with placebo, 21.7/11.5 mm Hg with the diuretic, 28.5/17.8 mm Hg with the beta blocker, and 28.9/18.4 mm Hg with the combined agent; in group 2 these values were 13.3/6.1, 20.3/9.7, 21.3/12.9, and 29.4/16.8 mm Hg, respectively. There was a sharp decrease of the average potassium concentration during chlorthalidone and combination treatment periods (average value 3.3 mmol(mEq)/1). These results suggest that moderate salt restriction used as sole treatment has a limited though demonstrable blood pressure lowering effect but that when it is used as an adjuvant to beta blocker treatment its value is greatly enhanced. In a double-blind, parallel-group multicentre study, the efficacy and safety of a fixed low-dose combination of ramipril 2.5 mg and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) 12.5 mg was compared with each of the component drugs when given as monotherapy. After a four-week placebo run-in, patients were randomized to receive either ramipril 2.5 mg (n = 218) or HCT 12.5 mg (n = 220), or the fixed-dose combination of ramipril 2.5 mg and HCT 12.5 mg (n = 222), for a period of eight weeks. At the end of the study, in which 624 patients had completed treatment, it was found that the decrease in supine diastolic blood pressure (the main efficacy parameter) was greater in the ramipril-HCT combination group than in either the ramipril or the HCT monotherapy groups, the difference being statistically significant when compared with the HCT group (-14.3, -13.1 and -12.4 mm Hg, respectively). Reductions in standing DBP and supine and standing systolic blood pressure (SBP) were also greatest in the combination group. The incidence of adverse events was lower in the combination group than in either of the monotherapy groups, and there were no serious clinically significant laboratory abnormalities in the combination group. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the angiotensin (AT) II receptor, AT1-subtype, antagonist candesartan were investigated in a dose-finding study in 232 patients of either gender, aged 28-69 years and weighing 54-110 kg. The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which oral doses of 2, 4, 8, 12 and 16 mg once daily were given as the pro-drug candesartan cilexetil from day 0 to day 28.
                The population pharmacokinetics of candesartan could be best described by a two-compartment body model, parameterized in terms of clearance (14.1 1.h-1), central volume of distribution (118 1), peripheral volume (272 1) and intercompartmental clearance (15.4 1.h-1). From these model parameters, a cumulation half-life (t1/2, beta) of 29 h was derived. Age and weight were influencing factors for the distribution and elimination of the drug. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were lowered by the treatment in a dose-dependent fashion. The maximum effect of each dose was reached after repeated administration. The link between plasma concentrations and effect could be described by a linear model when trough concentrations and blood pressure, measured at the same time, were modelled. In this model, the time dependence is implicitly handled as the trough concentrations increased during repeated administration. After treatment with the highest dose used in the trial (16 mg), the population estimate for the diastolic blood pressure was reduced from 103.2 mmHg (pre-dose day 0) to 93.3 mmHg (on day 29) and the systolic blood pressure from 154.6 mmHg (pre-dose day 0) to 137.9 mmHg (on day 29). None of the covariates (age, weight, gender) had an influence on the concentration-effect relationship. The present study investigated the efficacy, safety, and utility of starting an alpha(1d)-selective antagonist, naftopidil, at 75 or 25 mg/day in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
                In this prospective comparative study, the subjects comprised 153 patients with LUTS associated with BPH. Patients were randomized to receive either 25 mg/day (Group LD) or 75 mg/day (Group HD) of naftopidil for 4 weeks. The lower urinary tract disease symptom score (LUTDSS), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the Quality of life assessment index, the maximum flow rate (Q(max)), and the residual urine volume were compared between the groups.
                In both groups, the LUTDSS and the IPSS were significantly improved at the endpoint and no significant intergroup differences were identified. However, the improvement in the Q(max) was significantly better for Group HD than for Group LD. The overall efficacy did not differ significantly between the groups. The degree of improvement in voiding symptoms and LUTDSS among patients with moderate symptoms was significantly greater for Group HD than for Group LD. The frequency of adverse reactions did not differ significantly between the groups.
                Starting administration at 75 mg/day rather than 25mg/day is helpful for LUTS associated with BPH for patients with moderate symptoms, particularly in improving voiding symptoms. The 75 mg/day administration was considered to be a recommendable therapeutic dose in some patients. Although several important studies have been performed in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients, it is not known whether lowering blood pressure in normotensive (BP <140/90 mm Hg) patients offers any beneficial results on vascular complications. The current study evaluated the effect of intensive versus moderate diastolic blood pressure (DBP) control on diabetic vascular complications in 480 normotensive type 2 diabetic patients.
                The current study was a prospective, randomized controlled trial in normotensive type 2 diabetic subjects. The subjects were randomized to intensive (10 mm Hg below the baseline DBP) versus moderate (80 to 89 mm Hg) DBP control. Patients in the moderate therapy group were given placebo, while the patients randomized to intensive therapy received either nisoldipine or enalapril in a blinded manner as the initial antihypertensive medication. The primary end point evaluated was the change in creatinine clearance with the secondary endpoints consisting of change in urinary albumin excretion, progression of retinopathy and neuropathy and the incidence of cardiovascular disease.
                The mean follow-up was 5.3 years. Mean BP in the intensive group was 128 +/- 0.8/75 +/- 0.3 mm Hg versus 137 +/- 0.7/81 +/- 0.3 mm Hg in the moderate group, P < 0.0001. Although no difference was demonstrated in creatinine clearance (P = 0.43), a lower percentage of patients in the intensive group progressed from normoalbuminuria to microalbuminuria (P = 0.012) and microalbuminuria to overt albuminuria (P = 0.028). The intensive BP control group also demonstrated less progression of diabetic retinopathy (P = 0.019) and a lower incidence of strokes (P = 0.03). The results were the same whether enalapril or nisoldipine was used as the initial antihypertensive agent.
                Over a five-year follow-up period, intensive (approximately 128/75 mm Hg) BP control in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients: (1) slowed the progression to incipient and overt diabetic nephropathy; (2) decreased the progression of diabetic retinopathy; and (3) diminished the incidence of stroke. The antihypertensive effectiveness of twice-daily dosing with the converting enzyme inhibitor, captopril, was examined in a multicenter study of 294 patients (181 white, 111 black, two oriental) with essential hypertension whose supine diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) was 95 mm Hg or higher after 4 to 6 weeks of preliminary placebo administration. In this double-blind study, the patients were randomized into one placebo and three captopril-treated groups: twice-daily placebo (n = 77) or twice-daily captopril 25 mg (n = 77), 50 mg (n = 71), or 100 mg (n = 69). The average decreases in SDBP after 8 weeks of treatment were 5.2%, 7.7%, 11.7%, and 10.5%, respectively. Only the two higher dose groups differed significantly from the placebo group; they also differed from the lowest dose group. The proportions of patients classified as having normalized pressures (SDBP less than 90 mm Hg) in the four groups were 39%, 47%, 70%, and 50%. If the results were analyzed by race, all three captopril-treated groups differed significantly from the placebo-treated group in the white patients but not in the black patients. However, direct comparisons between the white and black groups showed a difference only at the low, 25 mg twice daily (b.i.d.), captopril dose. Thus, although conventionally given on a three-times daily basis, the twice-daily (12-hourly) administration of captopril provides effective antihypertensive treatment in doses of 50 or 100 mg b.i.d. Moreover, white patients also exhibit a significant response to captopril at doses as low as 25 mg b.i.d.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Cilazapril (CLZ) is a new, long-acting nonsulfhydril converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I). Its effect on peak and trough sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) was studied in a total of 85 patients with uncomplicated, essential hypertension at three centers. After 4 weeks of a single-blind placebo (PLA) run-in period, patients whose SDBP was between 100 and 115 mm Hg, were randomized into active treatment with either PLA (n = 27), CLZ 2.5 mg (n = 29), or CLZ 5 mg (n = 29) once daily in a double-blind fashion for another 8 weeks. At the end of the PLA run-in and after 4 and 8 weeks active therapy, an hourly blood pressure (BP) profile during 1-10 and 21-24 h postdose was performed. The drop in SDBP at the end of the active treatment period at peak and trough was statistically and clinically significant for both CLZ doses in comparison with the PLA group. The peak/trough ratio after subtraction of the PLA effect was 62% for CLZ 2.5 mg and 59% for CLZ 5 mg. These results indicate that the dose regimen of CLZ 2.5-5 mg once daily is adequate and effective for 24 h. Hypertensive emergencies, and to a certain extent their treatment, contribute to morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. We studied 22 hospitalized patients, aged 70-90 years, all of whom had moderate essential hypertensive. During acute hypertension, mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure rose to 230 +/- 24 and 120 +/- 22 mmHg, respectively. Symptoms of reduced tissue perfusion/oxygenation and/or organ failure occurred, forcing us to begin antihypertensive therapy. We administered 50 mg of the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor captopril sublingually, and within 15 min, systolic blood pressure decreased by an average 60 +/- 16 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure by an average 25 +/- 14 mmHg. There was no significant change in the heart rate. In addition, we treated 22 comparable patients with 10 mg nifedipine sublingually and observed, in four cases, a greater fall in blood pressure (up to 90 mmHg) together with tachycardia. These results show the beneficial effects of captopril in the treatment of hypertensive emergencies in elderly patients. The absence of dangerous side effects indicates that ACE inhibitors can be used as first-choice drugs for the treatment of acute hypertensive crises, even in old age. Whether the treatment of patients with hypertension who are 80 years of age or older is beneficial is unclear. It has been suggested that antihypertensive therapy may reduce the risk of stroke, despite possibly increasing the risk of death.
                We randomly assigned 3845 patients from Europe, China, Australasia, and Tunisia who were 80 years of age or older and had a sustained systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or more to receive either the diuretic indapamide (sustained release, 1.5 mg) or matching placebo. The angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor perindopril (2 or 4 mg), or matching placebo, was added if necessary to achieve the target blood pressure of 150/80 mm Hg. The primary end point was fatal or nonfatal stroke.
                The active-treatment group (1933 patients) and the placebo group (1912 patients) were well matched (mean age, 83.6 years; mean blood pressure while sitting, 173.0/90.8 mm Hg); 11.8% had a history of cardiovascular disease. Median follow-up was 1.8 years. At 2 years, the mean blood pressure while sitting was 15.0/6.1 mm Hg lower in the active-treatment group than in the placebo group. In an intention-to-treat analysis, active treatment was associated with a 30% reduction in the rate of fatal or nonfatal stroke (95% confidence interval [CI], -1 to 51; P=0.06), a 39% reduction in the rate of death from stroke (95% CI, 1 to 62; P=0.05), a 21% reduction in the rate of death from any cause (95% CI, 4 to 35; P=0.02), a 23% reduction in the rate of death from cardiovascular causes (95% CI, -1 to 40; P=0.06), and a 64% reduction in the rate of heart failure (95% CI, 42 to 78; P<0.001). Fewer serious adverse events were reported in the active-treatment group (358, vs. 448 in the placebo group; P=0.001).
                The results provide evidence that antihypertensive treatment with indapamide (sustained release), with or without perindopril, in persons 80 years of age or older is beneficial. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00122811 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).
                Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. Lisinopril (LIS) is a lysine analog of enalaprilat, the active metabolite of enalapril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI). Unlike enalapril, the precursor of enalaprilat, LIS is not a prodrug but has equal ACEI efficacy and potency and a slightly longer duration of action after oral administration. Short-term (12 weeks) and long-term (24 weeks) blood pressure control has been studied with LIS, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), and LIS + HCTZ when given once a day. Drug treatment had three phases: (i) 2-4 weeks of single-blind placebo washout; (ii) 12 weeks of double-blind comparison therapy with LIS 20, 40, and 80 mg vs. HCTZ 12.5, 25, and 50 mg, vs. LIS + HCTZ 20 + 12.5, 40 + 25, and 80 + 50 mg; (iii) 13-24 weeks single-blind LIS vs. LIS + HCTZ. Starting double-blind therapy at the lowest dose, all three groups doubled the dose at weeks 4 and 8 if BP was not controlled with sitting diastolic BP (SDBP) less than 90 mm Hg. At the end of 12 weeks of double-blind therapy, uncontrolled HCTZ-only and LIS-only treatment groups were advanced to combination LIS + HCTZ therapy but uncontrolled LIS + HCTZ patients were dropped. Mean BP reductions (systolic/diastolic, mm Hg) for all three groups after 12 weeks of double-blind comparison therapy were: (i) LIS (n = 162), -16.6/-12.5; (ii) HCTZ (n = 155), -10.4/-6.8; (iii) LIS + HCTZ (n = 74), -23.9/-18.2 with p less than 0.01 for all groups compared to baseline.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) The Plaque Hypertension Lipid-Lowering Italian Study (PHYLLIS) tested whether (1) the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor fosinopril (20 mg per day) was more effective on carotid atherosclerosis progression than the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg per day), (2) pravastatin (40 mg per day) was more effective than placebo when added to either hydrochlorothiazide or fosinopril, and (3) there were additive effects of ACE inhibitor and lipid-lowering therapies.
                A total of 508 hypertensive, hypercholesterolemic patients with asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis were randomized to: (A) hydrochlorothiazide; (B) fosinopril; (C) hydrochlorothiazide plus pravastatin; and (D) fosinopril plus pravastatin, and followed up blindly for 2.6 years. B-Mode carotid scans were performed yearly by certified sonographers in 13 hospitals and read centrally. Corrections for drift were calculated from readings repeated at study end. Primary outcome was change in mean maximum intima-media thickness of far and near walls of common carotids and bifurcations bilaterally (CBM(max)).
                CBM(max) significantly progressed (0.010+/-0.004 mm per year; P=0.01) in group A (hydrochlorothiazide alone) but not in groups B, C, and D. CBM(max) changes in groups B, C, and D were significantly different from changes in group A. Changes in group A were concentrated at the bifurcations. "Clinic" and "ambulatory" blood pressure reductions were not significantly different between groups, but total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased by approximately 1 mmol/L in groups C and D.
                Progression of carotid atherosclerosis occurred with hydrochlorothiazide but not with fosinopril. Progression could also be avoided by associating pravastatin with hydrochlorothiazide. To determine whether long-term treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor has a beneficial effect on the urinary microalbumin excretion and renal function in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) patients, enalapril (5 mg/day) was administered for 48 months.
                -Fifty-two patients with NIDDM who had persistent microalbuminuria in the range of 20-300 mg/24 h, serum creatinine < 106.1 microM (1.2 mg/dl), supine systolic blood pressure (BP) < 150 mmHg, supine diastolic BP < 90 mmHg, and HbA1c < 10% were divided into four groups. Twenty-six patients with normotension were divided at random into two groups; one group received enalapril (5 mg/day) (NE group), the other did not receive enalapril (NC group). In the same way, 26 other patients who were already well-controlled with nifedipine (30 mg/day) over a long-term period (4-6 years) were divided at random into two groups; one received enalapril (5 mg/day) (HE group), the other did not receive enalapril (HC group).
                After 48 months, urinary albumin excretion (UAE) was markedly reduced in group NE from 102.4 x/divided by 1.3 to 55.5 x/divided by 1.3 mg/24 h (P < 0.005), whereas no significant change occurred in group NC. In the well-controlled hypertensive groups, a significant reduction in UAE occurred in group HE (P < 0.05), whereas no significant change occurred in group HC. No changes in creatinine clearance, BP, or blood glucose control were seen during the study.
                Treatment with enalapril for 48 months may have a beneficial effect on the decline of microalbumin excretion in NIDDM patients. The safety and effectiveness of different dosages and combinations of antihypertensive agents can be efficiently studied using a multifactorial trial design. In consultation with the Cardio-Renal Division of the Food and Drug Administration, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3 x 4 factorial trial of bisoprolol, a beta 1-selective adrenergic blocking agent, and hydrochlorothiazide.
                A total of 512 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were randomized to once-daily treatment with bisoprolol (0, 2.5, 10, or 40 mg), hydrochlorothiazide (0, 6.25, or 25 mg), and all possible combinations. Diastolic and systolic blood pressures were monitored during this 12-week trial.
                The effects of bisoprolol and hydrochlorothiazide were additive with respect to reductions in diastolic and systolic blood pressures over the dosage ranges studied. The addition of hydrochlorothiazide (or bisoprolol) to therapy with bisoprolol (or hydrochlorothiazide) produced an incremental reduction in blood pressure. Dosages of hydrochlorothiazide as low as 6.25 mg/d contributed a significant antihypertensive effect. A hydrochlorothiazide dosage of 6.25 mg/d produced significantly less hypokalemia and less of an increase in uric acid levels than a dosage of 25 mg/d. The low-dose combination of bisoprolol, 2.5 mg/d, and hydrochlorothiazide, 6.25 mg/d, reduced diastolic blood pressure to lower than 90 mm Hg in 61% of patients and demonstrated a safety profile that compared favorably with that of placebo.
                The utility of factorial design trials to characterize dose-response relationships and to test the potential interactions between various antihypertensive agents has been demonstrated. The combination of low dosages of bisoprolol and hydrochlorothiazide may be a rational alternative to conventional stepped-care therapy for the initial treatment of patients with mild to moderate hypertension. To compare the efficacy of pentoxifylline and captopril on urinary albumin excretion (UAE) rate in non-hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuria.
                450 subjects were screened; of these 130 eligible, non-hypertensive, type 2 diabetic subjects were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive either pentoxifylline 400 mg t.i.d. (n = 65) or captopril 25 mg t.i.d. (n = 65) for six months in a randomized equivalent trial design study. Patients were eligible to participate if they had microalbuminuria, defined by UAE rate of 20-200 microg/min, and systolic/diastolic blood pressure lower than 140/85 mmHg. Diagnosis of high blood pressure and renal failure were exclusion criteria. In addition, subjects receiving ACE inhibitors or pentoxifylline were not included.
                Both treatments were well tolerated, without serious adverse events; nonetheless, one subject (1.6%) in the group with pentoxifylline had severe headache, and three (4.7%) subjects in the group with captopril had intense dry cough and nasal congestion that required stopping pentoxifylline and captopril. In addition, slight headache and mild dry cough that did not require specific treatment or interruption of medication were present in two (3.2%) and five (7.8%) subjects treated with pentoxifylline and captopril. Four subjects dropped-out (one in the pentoxifylline group and three in the captopril group). Blood pressure and fasting glucose levels were similar between the two groups throughout the study. The UAE rate decreased from the first month of treatment in the subjects of both groups, a reduction that was sustained in the following months. At the end of the study, the average UAE rate in the subjects of both groups was lower than 25 microg/min.
                Pentoxifylline showed to be an effective alternative to ACE inhibitors in reducing UAE in non-hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. National and international policy-making organizations advocate nonpharmacologic therapies to reduce blood pressure (BP). However, data to support such recommendations in older persons are virtually nonexistent. The Trials of Nonpharmacologic Intervention in the Elderly (TONE) is a randomized, controlled trial that will test whether weight loss or a reduced sodium (Na) intake or both can maintain satisfactory BP control, without unacceptable side effects, after withdrawal of antihypertensive drug therapy. Medication-treated hypertensives (aged 60 to 80 years) with a systolic BP less than 145 mm Hg and a diastolic BP less than 85 mm Hg who are taking one antihypertensive medication are randomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) weight loss alone, (2) reduced Na intake alone, (3) combined weight loss and reduced Na intake, or (4) usual life-style (control group). Overweight participants are randomized to one of these four groups, while nonoverweight individuals are assigned to either the reduced Na intake or the usual life-style group. The interventions, tailored to the needs of older persons, use behavioral approaches to accomplish intervention-specific goals (weight loss > or = 10 lb, daily Na intake < or = 80 mEqa). Three months after the start of intervention, antihypertensive drug therapy is withdrawn. The primary trial end point is a BP of 150/90 mm Hg or higher, resumption of antihypertensive drug therapy, or the occurrence of a BP-related clinical complication during 2 to 3 years of follow-up. It is anticipated that TONE findings may identify an effective and acceptable nonpharmacologic approach to control hypertension in the increasingly large number of older persons treated with antihypertensive drug therapy. To compare the antihypertensive efficacy of moexipril, a new angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, to treatment with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ).
                Two hundred and one non-hospitalized male and female patients between 65 and 80 years of age with essential hypertension.
                This was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study with a parallel group design. Subjects with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or = 95 mmHg were randomized to monotherapy with placebo, moexipiril 7.5 mg o.d., moexipril 15 mg o.d. or HCTZ 25 mg o.d. for 8 weeks.
                Throughout the study period treatment with moexipril and HCTZ resulted in significant reductions of DBP compared with placebo, but there were no significant differences between the active treatment groups. At end point the adjusted mean reductions were 10.5, 8.7 and 10.1 mmHg in the HCTZ, moexipril 7.5 mg and moexipril 15 mg groups, respectively, compared to 3.9 mmHg in the placebo group. Treatment with moexipril was associated with two cases of first dose hypotension and two cases of moderate and reversible increases in serum creatinine levels. Otherwise, both dosages of moexipril were well tolerated and the overall percentages of patients who had adverse experiences were smaller than in the placebo group.
                Moexipril is well tolerated and is at least as effective as HCTZ in elderly patients with essential hypertension. This prospective, double-blind, parallel-group study randomized patients with moderate hypertension (seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) 160-179 mm Hg when seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) <110 mm Hg; or SeDBP 100-109 mm Hg when SeSBP <180 mm Hg) 3:1:1 to treatment with irbesartan 300 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg combination therapy (n=328), irbesartan 300 mg monotherapy (n=106) or HCTZ monotherapy 25 mg (n=104). Treatment was initiated at half dose, with forced titration to full dose after two weeks followed by ten further weeks' treatment. The primary efficacy variable was the mean reduction in SeSBP from baseline to week 8. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, with mean baseline blood pressure approximately 162/98 mm Hg; the mean age was 55 years. At week 8 there was a reduction in SeSBP of 27.1 mm Hg with irbesartan/HCTZ, compared with 22.1 mm Hg with irbesartan monotherapy (P=0.0016) and 15.7 mm Hg with HCTZ (P<0.0001). Both the rate of decline and the total degree of decline achieved were greatest with irbesartan/HCTZ and least with HCTZ. A significantly greater percentage of patients reached a treatment goal of SeSBP <140 mm Hg and SeDBP <90 mm Hg by week 8 with irbesartan/HCTZ (53.4%), compared with irbesartan (40.6%; P=0.0254) and HCTZ (20.2%; P<0.0001) alone. Treatment was well tolerated in all three-treatment groups with a slight increase in adverse events in the combination therapy group. In conclusion, irbesartan/HCTZ (300/25 mg) is well tolerated and achieves rapid and sustained reductions in both systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in patients with moderate hypertension. Men aged 40-64 years with mild to moderate hypertension [diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 100-130 mmHg] were randomized to treatment with a diuretic (n = 3272) or a beta-blocker (n = 3297), with additional drugs if necessary, to determine whether a beta-blocker based treatment differs from thiazide diuretic based treatment with regard to the prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) events and death. Patients with previous CHD, stroke or other serious diseases, or with contraindications to diuretics or beta-blockers were excluded. If normotension (DBP less than 95 mmHg) was not achieved by monotherapy, other antihypertensive drugs were added, but the two basic drugs were not crossed over. Patients were assessed at 6-monthly intervals. The mean follow-up for end-points was 45.1 months. Blood pressure (BP) side effects and end-points were recorded in a standardized manner. Entry characteristics and the BP reduction achieved were very similar in both treatment groups. All analyses were made on an intention-to-treat basis. The incidence of CHD did not differ between the two treatment groups. The incidence of fatal stroke tended to be lower in the beta-blocker treated group than in the diuretic treated group. Total mortality and the total number of end-points were similar in both groups. The percentage of patients withdrawn due to side effects was similar, whereas the number of reported symptoms, according to a questionnaire, was higher for patients on beta-blockers. The incidence of diabetes did not differ between the two groups. Subgroup analyses did not detect a difference in the effect of beta-blockers compared with diuretics in smokers as opposed to non-smokers, and beta-blockers also had the same effects as diuretics in the quartile with the highest predicted risk for CHD. Beta-blockers and thiazide diuretics were approximately equally well tolerated. The two drugs had a similar BP reducing effect although additional drugs had to be given more often in the diuretic group. Antihypertensive treatment based on a beta-blocker or on a thiazide diuretic could not be shown to affect the prevention of hypertensive complications, including CHD, to a different extent. Fifty-nine patients who sustained hyphema following blunt trauma were randomly assigned prospectively to either of two dose regimens of epsilon aminocaproic acid (Amicar). Twenty-six took an oral dosage of 50 mg/kg ("half dose") every four hours for five days, up to a maximum of 30 g/day, and 33 patients received 100 mg/kg ("full-dose") every four hours up to a maximum of 30 g/day. Five patients in the full-dose group experienced dizziness, hypotension, and syncope. Half-dose Amicar substantially reduced such serious side effects (P = 0.063), had no adverse effect on the reduced rate of recurrent hemorrhages (P = 0.22), and was more cost effective than the full-dose regimen. When the two patients in the half-dose group receiving 30 g/day of Amicar were deleted, however, the comparison of dizziness and hypotension in the two groups became more significant (P = 0.050). The incidence of nausea and vomiting was approximately the same in both groups (P = 0.52). Serum Amicar levels were within the range of plasminogen inhibition at both dose levels. Prior aspirin ingestion appeared to have no influence on the rate of rebleeding (P = 0.58). This prospective, randomized, controlled study evaluated the impact of pharmacist-initiated home blood pressure monitoring and intervention on blood pressure control, therapy compliance, and quality of life (QOL). Subjects were 36 patients with uncontrolled stage 1 or 2 hypertension. Eighteen subjects received home blood pressure monitors, a diary, and instructions to measure blood pressure twice every morning. Home measurements were evaluated by a clinical pharmacist by telephone, and the patient's family physician was contacted with recommendations if mean monthly values were 140/90 mm Hg or higher. Eighteen control patients did not receive home monitors or pharmacist intervention. Office blood pressure measurements and QOL surveys (SF-36) were obtained at baseline and after 6 months. Mean absolute reductions in systolic and diastolic pressures were significantly reduced from baseline in intervention subjects (17.0 and 10.5 mm Hg, both p < 0.0001) but not in controls (7.0 and 3.8 mm Hg, p = 0.12 and p = 0.09). More intervention subjects (8) had blood pressure values below 140/90 at 6 months compared with controls (4). During the study 83.3% (15) of intervention subjects had drug therapy changes versus 33% (6) of controls (p < 0.01). Compliance and QOL were not significantly affected. Our data suggest that the combination of pharmacist intervention with home monitoring can improve blood pressure control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. This may be related to increased modifications of drug regimens. The extent of morning blood pressure (BP) surge upon wakening has been associated with increased incidence of stroke and cardiovascular mortality. This trial investigated the antihypertensive efficacy and effects on the morning BP surge of awakening versus bedtime administration of nifedipine in essential hypertension.
                We studied 238 previously untreated hypertensive patients (108 men and 130 women), 53.3+/-11.4 years of age, randomly assigned to receive nifedipine (30 mg/day) as a monotherapy either upon awakening or at bedtime. BP was measured for 48 h before and after 8 weeks of treatment.
                The BP reduction after the treatment was significantly greater with bedtime dosing (P<0.001). The proportion of patients with controlled ambulatory BP thus increased from 28 to 43% (P = 0.019) with bedtime treatment. The sleep time relative BP decline was unchanged after morning treatment, but increased toward a more dipping pattern after bedtime dosing (P = 0.026 between groups). The morning BP surge was unchanged after the administration of nifedipine upon awakening (1.4/1.2 mmHg reduction in systolic/diastolic BP surge, P>0.270), but significantly reduced after bedtime dosing (6.2/4.4 mmHg reduction, P<0.001).
                Nifedipine efficiently reduces BP for the entire 24 h and to a significantly larger extent after bedtime administration. The significant added efficacy on reducing night-time BP, the decrease in the prevalence of a nondipper BP pattern, and the significant decrease in morning BP surge (all relevant markers of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality) of bedtime as compared with morning administration, consistently indicate that nifedipine should preferably be administered at bedtime in patients with essential hypertension. In this double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, the aim was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a new fixed combination of felodipine and metoprolol with the individual components in monotherapy. After a placebo period of 4 weeks, 159 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were randomized to extended-release formulations of either felodipine plus metoprolol 10 + 100 mg (FM), felodipine 10 mg (F), or metoprolol 100 mg (M) once daily if supine diastolic blood pressure greater than 95 mm Hg. After 12 weeks of active treatment, the reductions in supine blood pressure (24 h after dosing) were 20/14, 13/10, and 11/8 mm Hg for FM, F, and M, respectively. The difference in change was 7/4 mm Hg (p = 0.004/p = 0.006) and 8/5 mm Hg (p = 0.0002/p less than 0.0001) for the fixed combination and F or M, respectively. Blood pressure control (diastolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg after 12 weeks) was significantly better for the combination than for F and M, i.e., 71%, 49% (p = 0.008), and 34% (p = 0.004), respectively. Adverse experiences were those to be expected from previous studies with felodipine and metoprolol and did not differ in frequency between groups. It can be concluded that a fixed combination of metoprolol and felodipine has a clinically relevant and significantly better blood pressure reduction 24 h postdose than the individual substances in monotherapy, without decreased tolerability. Persistent activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) is known to occur in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) despite treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE) therapy. When added to ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) antagonists may allow more complete blockade of the RAAS and preserve the beneficial effects of bradykinin accumulation not seen with AT1 receptor blockade alone.
                Thirty-six patients with stable New York Heart Association class II-IV CHF receiving ACE inhibitor therapy were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive either eprosartan, a specific competitive AT1 receptor antagonist (400 to 800 mg daily, n = 18) or placebo (n = 18) for 8 weeks. The primary outcome measure was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) as measured by radionuclide ventriculography, and secondary measures were central hemodynamics assessed by Swan-Ganz catheterization and neurohormonal effects.
                There was no change in LVEF with eprosartan therapy (mean relative LVEF percentage change [SEM] +10.5% [9.3] vs +10.1% [5.0], respectively; difference, 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], -20.8 to 21.7; P =.97). Eprosartan was associated with a significant reduction in diastolic blood pressure and a trend toward a reduction in systolic blood pressure compared with placebo (-7.3 mm Hg [95% CI, -14.2 to -0.4] diastolic; -8.9 mm Hg [95% CI, -18.6 to 0.8] systolic). No significant change in heart rate or central hemodynamics occurred during treatment with eprosartan compared with placebo. A trend toward an increase in plasma renin activity was noted with eprosartan therapy. Eprosartan was well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to placebo, whereas kidney function remained unchanged.
                When added to an ACE inhibitor, eprosartan reduced arterial pressure without increasing heart rate. There was no change in LVEF after 2 months of therapy with eprosartan. One third of patients treated for hypertension attain adequate blood pressure (BP) control, and multidrug regimens are often required. Given the lifelong nature of hypertension, there is a need to evaluate the long-term efficacy and tolerability of higher doses of combination anti-hypertensive therapies.
                This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of valsartan (VAL) or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ)-monotherapy and higher-dose combinations in patients with essential hypertension.
                The first part of this study was an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, parallel-group trial. Patients with essential hypertension (mean sitting diastolic BP [MSDBP], > or =95 mm Hg and <110 mm Hg) were randomized to 1 of 8 treatment groups: VAL 160 or 320 mg; HCTZ 12.5 or 25 mg; VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5, 320/12.5, or 320/25 mg; or placebo. Mean changes in MSDBP and mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP) were analyzed at the 8-week core study end point. VAL/HCTZ 320/12.5 and 320/25 mg were further investigated in a 54-week, open-label extension. Response was defined as MSDBP <90 mm Hg or a > or =10 mm Hg decrease compared to baseline. Control was defined as MSDBP <90 mm Hg compared with baseline. Tolerability was assessed by monitoring adverse events at randomization and all subsequent study visits and regular evaluation of hematology and blood chemistry.
                A total of 1346 patients were randomized into the 8-week core study (734 men, 612 women; 924 white, 291 black, 23 Asian, 108 other; mean age, 52.7 years; mean weight, 92.6 kg). All active treatments were associated with significantly reduced MSSBP and MSDBP during the core 8-week study, with each monotherapy significantly contributing to the overall effect of combination therapy (VAL and HCTZ, P < 0.001). Each combination was associated with significantly greater reductions in MSSBP and MSDBP compared with the monotherapies and placebo (all, P < 0.001). The mean reduction in MSSBP/MSDBP with VAL/HCTZ 320/25 mg was 24.7/16.6 mm Hg, compared with 5.9/7.0 mm Hg with placebo. The reduction in MSSBP was significantly greater with VAL/HCTZ 320/25 mg compared with VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg (P < 0.002). Rates of response and BP control were significantly higher in the groups that received combination treatment compared with those that received monotherapy. The incidence of hypokalemia was lower with VAL/HCTZ combinations (1.8%-6.1%) than with HCTZ monotherapies (7.1%-13.3%). The majority of adverse events in the core study were of mild to moderate severity. The efficacy and tolerability of VAL/HCTZ combinations were maintained during the extension (797 patients).
                In this study population, combination therapies with VAL/HCTZ were associated with significantly greater BP reductions compared with either monotherapy, were well tolerated, and were associated with less hypokalemia than HCTZ alone. Isolated systolic hypertension occurs in about 15% of people aged 60 years or older. In 1989, the European Working Party on High Blood Pressure in the Elderly investigated whether active treatment could reduce cardiovascular complications of isolated systolic hypertension. Fatal and non-fatal stroke combined was the primary endpoint.
                All patients (> 60 years) were initially started on masked placebo. At three run-in visits 1 month apart, their average sitting systolic blood pressure was 160-219 mm Hg with a diastolic blood pressure lower than 95 mm Hg. After stratification for centre, sex, and previous cardiovascular complications, 4695 patients were randomly assigned to nitrendipine 10-40 mg daily, with the possible addition of enalapril 5-20 mg daily and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5-25.0 mg daily, or matching placebos. Patients withdrawing from double-blind treatment were still followed up. We compared occurrence of major endpoints by intention to treat.
                At a median of 2 years' follow-up, sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressures had fallen by 13 mm Hg and 2 mm Hg in the placebo group (n = 2297) and by 23 mm Hg and 7 mm Hg in the active treatment group (n = 2398). The between-group differences were systolic 10.1 mm Hg (95% CI 8.8-11.4) and diastolic, 4.5 mm Hg (3.9-5.1). Active treatment reduced the total rate of stroke from 13.7 to 7.9 endpoints per 1000 patient-years (42% reduction; p = 0.003). Non-fatal stroke decreased by 44% (p = 0.007). In the active treatment group, all fatal and non-fatal cardiac endpoints, including sudden death, declined by 26% (p = 0.03). Non-fatal cardiac endpoints decreased by 33% (p = 0.03) and all fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular endpoints by 31% (p < 0.001). Cardiovascular mortality was slightly lower on active treatment (-27%, p = 0.07), but all-cause mortality was not influenced (-14%; p = 0.22).
                Among elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension, antihypertensive drug treatment starting with nitrendipine reduces the rate of cardiovascular complications. Treatment of 1000 patients for 5 years with this type of regimen may prevent 29 strokes or 53 major cardiovascular endpoints. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of salt-restriction alone and in combination with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (cilazapril) on both office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) levels in free living subjects with elevated BP. The study was carried out in an out-patient setting with subjects recruited from occupational health care system mainly. After exclusions, 39 subjects (24 men, 15 women, aged 28-65 years) with mildly to moderately elevated BP completed the study. After 3 months run-in period with placebo (first month on normal-salt and the next 2 months on sodium-restricted diet) the subjects were randomised into either salt-restriction placebo or salt-restriction cilazapril (2.5 mg daily) groups for 3 months. In the whole group, 24-h urinary sodium excretion decreased (mean +/- s.d.) from 198 +/- 60 to 112 +/- 59 mmol (4 weeks vs 24 weeks, P < 0.001). Systolic and diastolic office BP decreased during the placebo-sodium-restriction phase (-7.1 [95% Cl -11.2; -3.0] and -4.2 [95% Cl -6.6; -1.8] mm Hg for systolic and diastolic BP), and similarly the daytime ambulatory BP (ABP) was reduced during this period (-2.8 [95% Cl -5.2; -0.5] and -2.8 [95% Cl -4.5; -1.2] mm Hg, systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) respectively). No changes were observed in the night time ABP. Addition of cilazapril to sodium-restriction enhanced significantly the office BP (-13.2, [95% Cl -20.2; -6.2], and -9.1 [95% Cl -13.5; -4.7]) and daytime ABP (-5.9, [95% Cl -10.1; -1.8] and -5.3, [95% Cl -8.8; -1.9]) reduction. Blood glucose, plasma insulin or serum lipids did not change during the study. Moderate sodium restriction seems to lower the office and daytime ABP levels in subjects with mild-to-moderate hypertension. The antihypertensive effect of cilazapril could be enhanced by sodium restriction. This multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of factorial design evaluated the safety and efficacy of combination treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, enalapril, and the vascular selective calcium antagonist felodipine extended release (ER) in patients with essential hypertension. After a 4-week, single-blind placebo baseline period, 707 patients with sitting diastolic blood pressures (BPs) in the range of 95 to 115 mm Hg received placebo, enalapril (5 or 20 mg), felodipine ER (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), or their combinations for an 8-week double-blind treatment period. All doses of enalapril and felodipine ER had a statistically significant (p < 0.05) additive effect in reducing both systolic and diastolic BP. The trough to peak ratios for the combinations ranged from 0.63 (enalapril 5 mg-felodipine ER 2.5 mg) to 0.79 (enalapril 20 mg-felodipine ER 10 mg) and were consistent with effective BP control with 1 dose/day. Patients aged > or = 65 years demonstrated a greater reduction in diastolic BP. Combinations of enalapril-felodipine ER were associated with less drug-induced peripheral edema (4.1%) compared to felodipine ER monotherapy (10.8%). There were no serious drug-related adverse effects observed during the study. In this trial, the combination of enalapril and felodipine ER effectively lowered BP and was generally well tolerated with an excellent safety profile when used in the treatment of hypertension. The Intravenous Nimodipine West European Stroke Trial (INWEST) found a correlation between nimodipine-induced reduction in blood pressure (BP) and an unfavorable outcome in acute stroke. We sought to confirm this correlation with and without adjustment for prognostic variables and to investigate outcome in subgroups with increasing levels of BP reduction.
                Patients with a clinical diagnosis of ischemic stroke (within 24 hours) were consecutively allocated to receive placebo (n=100), 1 mg/h (low-dose) nimodipine (n=101), or 2 mg/h (high-dose) nimodipine (n=94). The correlation between average BP change during the first 2 days and the outcome at day 21 was analyzed.
                Two hundred sixty-five patients were included in this analysis (n=92, 93, and 80 for placebo, low dose, and high dose, respectively). Nimodipine treatment resulted in a statistically significant reduction in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) from baseline compared with placebo during the first few days. In multivariate analysis, a significant correlation between DBP reduction and worsening of the neurological score was found for the high-dose group (beta=0.49, P=0. 048). Patients with a DBP reduction of > or =20% in the high-dose group had a significantly increased adjusted OR for the compound outcome variable death or dependency (Barthel Index <60) (n/N=25/26, OR 10. 16, 95% CI 1.02 to 101.74) and death alone (n/N=9/26, OR 4.336, 95% CI 1.131 16.619) compared with all placebo patients (n/N=62/92 and 14/92, respectively). There was no correlation between SBP change and outcome.
                DBP, but not SBP, reduction was associated with neurological worsening after the intravenous administration of high-dose nimodipine after acute stroke. For low-dose nimodipine, the results were not conclusive. These results do not confirm or exclude a neuroprotective property of nimodipine. Stratum 2 of the Ramipril Efficacy in Nephropathy (REIN) study has already shown that in patients with chronic nephropathies and proteinuria of 3 g or more per 24 h, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition reduced the rate of decline in glomerular filtration and halved the combined risk of doubling of serum creatinine or end-stage renal failure (ESRF) found in controls on placebo plus conventional antihypertensives. In REIN stratum 1, reported here, 24 h proteinuria was 1 g or more but less than 3 g per 24 h.
                In stratum 1 of this double-blind trial 186 patients were randomised to a ramipril or a control (placebo plus conventional antihypertensive therapy) group targeted at achieving a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg. The primary endpoints were change in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and time to ESRF or overt proteinuria (> or =53 g/24 h). Median follow-up was 31 months.
                The decline in GFR per month was not significantly different (ramipril 0.26 [SE 0.05] mL per min per 1.73m2, control 0.29 [0.06]). Progression to ESRF was significantly less common in the ramipril group (9/99 vs 18/87) for a relative risk (RR) of 2.72 (95% CI 1.22-6.08); so was progression to overt proteinuria (15/99 vs 27/87, RR 2.40 [1.27-4.52]). Patients with a baseline GFR of 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 or less and proteinuria of 1.5 g/24 h or more had more rapid progression and gained the most from ramipril treatment. Proteinuria decreased by 13% in the ramipril group and increased by 15% in the controls. Cardiovascular events were similar. As expected, the rate of decline in GFR and the frequency of ESRF were much lower in stratum 1 than they had been in stratum 2.
                In non-diabetic nephropathies, ACE inhibition confers renoprotection even to patients with non-nephrotic proteinuria. The purpose of this study was to assess whether long-term (8 years) inhibition of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) protects kidney function in normotensive type 1 diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy.
                We performed an open randomized follow-up study of normotensive type 1 diabetics with nephropathy either treated (N = 15) or not (N = 17) with captopril twice per day (average 74, range 12.5 to 125 mg/day). The main outcome measures were arterial blood pressure, albuminuria, and glomerular filtration rate (GFR; 51Cr-EDTA plasma clearance, twice yearly).
                Arterial blood pressure (mm Hg) was kept constant in the captopril group, at baseline (mean, SEM), 128/78 (3/2) and during follow-up 129/77 (4/1) but increased significantly in the control group from 127/79 (2/1) to 137/84 (5/2) (P < 0.01). Furthermore, 8 out of the 17 control subjects required treatment with blood pressure-lowering drugs because they developed hypertension. The fractional albumin clearance (x10-5) remained unchanged in the captopril group: baseline [10.8 (1.25) geometric mean and antilog (SEM)] during the eight years [11.8 (1.47)], while a significant rise occurred in control patients: 13.3 (1.23) to 26.2 (1.42) (P < 0.05). Baseline GFR was nearly identical: 111 (6) and 115 (4) mL/min/1.73 m2 in the captopril and control group, respectively. The median (range) rate of decline in GFR (mL/min/year) was 1.7 (10.7 to -2.0) in the captopril group versus 2.8 (17.7 to -2.6) in the control group (P = NS).
                The beneficial effect of captopril in arresting the rise in systemic blood pressure and albuminuria is long lasting. A loss in GFR is minimal in most patients with diabetic nephropathy if normotension is sustained by prospective treatment with ACE inhibitors or restored by implementation of other antihypertensive medications with the development of hypertension. Repeated blood pressure recordings by non-invasive devices are of better predictive value than single measurements in the evaluation of antihypertensive treatment. Such a method has been used to establish the dose-effect relationship of perindopril. After a two-week placebo run-in period, 40 patients with essential hypertension (age 56.6 +/- 1.5 years, 31 males, nine females) were treated with placebo or 2, 4 or 8 mg of perindopril once daily for one month following a randomized double-blind design. They were included if at least 75% of diastolic blood pressure recordings, made over an 8 h diurnal period using an automatic blood pressure recorder, were greater than 95 mmHg on placebo. Values (mean +/- SEM) before and after treatment were assessed using analysis of variance. These data showed a significantly greater reduction of blood pressure with 4 mg and 8 mg daily doses compared to placebo and the 2 mg daily dose. Such results were not obtained with blood pressure levels recorded by a mercury sphygmomanometer, confirming the value of an automatic blood pressure recorder as a tool in therapeutic trials. Despite the beneficial effects of blockade of the renin-angiotensin system in diabetic nephropathy (DN), albuminuria and progression of renal disease are not completely halted by these agents. Therefore, it is necessary to explore potential antiproteinuric and renoprotective effects of innovative therapeutic approaches. This study tested the hypothesis that the combination of pentoxifylline (PTF) with angiotensin II receptor blockers in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes produces an additive antiproteinuric effect. Sixty-one patients with DN and residual albuminuria despite treatment with the recommended doses of ARB for >1 yr were randomly assigned to receive the addition of 1200 mg of PTF daily (n = 30) or to a control group (n = 31). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, and correlation analysis showed a significant association between urinary albumin excretion (UAE) and urinary TNF-alpha (R = 0.53, P < 0.001). After 4 mo, albuminuria showed a significant decrease in patients who received PTF, from 900 mg/24 h (466 to 1542 mg/d) to 791 mg/24 h (309 to 1400 mg/d; P < 0.001), whereas no significant changes were observed in the control group: 920 mg/24 h (450 to 1489 mg/d) at baseline, and 900 mg/24 h (428 to 1800 mg/d) at the end of the study. The mean percentage variation of UAE in the treatment and control groups was -16.7 and 5.5%, respectively (between-group comparison, P < 0.001). This additive antiproteinuric effect was not dependent on changes in BP or metabolic control. However, both serum and urinary levels of TNF-alpha also decreased in patients who received PTF, from 6.4 pg/ml (2.1 to 9.7) and 16 pg/mg (8 to 29) at baseline to 4.6 pg/ml (0.4 to 9) and 14.2 pg/mg (3 to 26) at the end of the study, respectively (P < 0.01), without significant variations in control patients. Moreover, regression analysis at the end of the study showed a correlation between the change in UAE and the change in urinary TNF-alpha in patients who were treated with PTF (R = 0.49, P < 0.001). In conclusion, administration of PTF to patients who have type 2 diabetes and are under long-term treatment with an ARB produces a significant additive antiproteinuric effect associated with a reduction of urinary TNF-alpha excretion. To compare the efficacy of aprotinin (APR) and tranexamic acid (TRA) in reducing blood loss and transfusion requirements after cardiac surgery under extracorporeal circulation (ECC).
                Randomized controlled trial.
                One hundred and four adults undergoing either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n = 55), or aortic valve replacement (AVR) (n = 49), allocated into three groups.
                a) APR group (23 CABG and 20 AVR) received aprotinin, 2 x 10(6) KIU (280 mg) after induction, followed by an infusion of 0.5 x 106 KIU.h-1 (70 mg.h-1) until chest closure, with a supplement to the oxygenator prime of 2 x 10(6) KIU; b) TRA group (22 CABG and 19 AVR) received tranexamic acid, 15 mg.kg-1 between the injection of heparin (400 IU.kg-1) and the beginning of ECC, 15 mg.kg-1 after protamin injection (1.3 mg/100 IU of heparin); c) CTR group (10 CABG and 10 AVR), the control group, was not treated with an antifibrinolytic agent. The amount of blood collected from the chest tube drainage was measured at admission to ICU, as well as 4, 8 and 18 h after the insertion of drains and at the time of their removal. Packed red cells where given when the haematocrit was under 20% during ECC, 25% at the end of surgery and 30% after extubation.
                The blood loss was lower in APR group (834 +/- 448 mL) than in TRA group (1015 +/- 409 mL) (P = 0.009), and in CTR group (1416 +/- 559 ML) (P = 0.004). The rates of transfused patients in groups APR, ATR and CTR were 35, 37 and 60% respectively and the numbers of units administered per patient were 0.8, 0.8 and 1.7 respectively. In AVR cases, APR and TRA had a similar efficacy. In CABG cases, only aprotinin decreased postoperative bleeding. However there was no difference between APR and TRA concerning the transfusion requirements. In CABG cases the ECC was of shorter duration and blood loss was 1127 +/- 540 mL vs 894 +/- 422 mL in AVR cases (P = 0.03).
                Both APR and TRA decrease blood loss. APR is more efficient after CABG than TRA as far as blood loss is concerned, whereas the transfusion requirements are similar. As APR is about 100 times more expensive and carries a risk for allergic reactions, its use in a high dose regimen is only recommended for reoperations, in patients treated with salicylates and in case of sepsis. We investigated in a double-blind study whether metformin reduces blood pressure (BP) in patients with Type 2 diabetes intensively treated with insulin.
                A total of 220 patients with Type 2 diabetes were asked to undergo 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (24-h ABPM). One hundred and eighty-two gave informed consent. Eighty-nine were randomized to metformin and 93 to placebo. Thirty-five subjects dropped out (13 placebo, 22 metformin users); 147 patients underwent a second 24-h ABPM, 16 weeks after randomization.
                Systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), pulse BP (PP), mean BP (MP) and heart rate (HR) were measured as office BP measurements and as 24-h ABPM for 24-h, day and night. Office BP measurements did not differ significantly between the placebo- and metformin-treated groups for any BP measure, but showed a non-significant trend for SBP reduction with metformin use (mean baseline-adjusted difference, metformin minus placebo: -4.2 mmHg, 95% CI, -9.9 to +1.5; P = 0.15). The baseline-adjusted differences of the ambulatory measurements were -0.2 mmHg (95% CI, -2.9 to +2.6) for the 24-h SBP, and +1.1 mmHg (95% CI, -0.7 to +2.8) for the 24-h DBP. On the whole, BP differences between metformin- and placebo-treated groups were not statistically significant. The only significant difference was for night-time PP (baseline-adjusted difference: -2.2 mmHg; 95% CI, -4.2 to -0.2). These results were not different after adjustment for age and diabetes duration, or for (changes in) body mass index, glycated haemoglobin, insulin dose or plasma homocysteine.
                Metformin does not significantly affect BP in patients with Type 2 diabetes intensively treated with insulin. Second-generation and third-generation oral contraceptives containing 30 mcg or more of ethinylestradiol (EE) decrease insulin sensitivity (SI). In this study, we investigated whether SI is decreased by contraceptives containing lower doses EE or by progestins with antiandrogenic properties.
                Twenty-eight young healthy women were randomly allocated to receive 20 mcg of EE and 150 mcg of desogestrel (DSG) (n=14) or 30 mcg of EE and 2 mg of chlormadinone acetate (CMA) (n=14) for 6 months. SI and glucose utilization independent of insulin (Sg) were investigated by the minimal model method. Lipid modifications were also analyzed.
                SI decreased with EE/DSG (7.09+/-1.4 vs. 4.30+/-0.91; p=.04; n=12), but not with EE/CMA (5.79+/-0.93 vs. 6.79+/-1.1; p=.48; n=12). SI modifications observed in the two groups were significantly different (-2.79+/-1.15 vs. 1.0+/-1.38; p=.05). Sg did not vary with either treatment. The response of C-peptide to glucose increased, but significantly so only with EE/CMA (p=.01). The C-peptide/insulin response increased with both EE/DSG (p=.05) and EE/CMA (p=.04). High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (p=.02) and triglycerides (p=.02 and p=.01) increased in both groups, but HDL/low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p=.02), apoprotein A1 (Apo-A1) (p=.04) and Apo-A1/apoprotein B (p=.048) increased significantly only with EE/CMA.
                The present study confirms that DSG, even when associated with low EE dose, decreases SI. By contrast, EE/CMA does not deteriorate SI and induces a favorable lipid profile. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of nitrendipine in comparison with captopril in hypertensive diabetic patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH).
                A total of 75 patients enrolled in this study presented stable type 2 diabetes (not treated with insulin) and mild-to-moderate hypertension with a left ventricular mass > or = 75 g/m2 by two-dimensional echocardiography. After a 4-week washout period, 38 patients were assigned to treatment with captopril, and 37 patients to nitrendipine (random allocation). The duration of follow-up was 36 weeks.
                Patients of both groups were similar with regard to the duration of diabetes and hypertension, systolic and diastolic blood pressure at rest, degree of LVH, metabolic control, and albumin excretion rate (AER). Both drugs were equally effective in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure (captopril: from 165 +/- 13/100 +/- 4 to 147 +/- 11/87 +/- 4 mmHg; nitrendipine: from 167 +/- 17/100 +/- 5 to 143 +/- 9/86 +/- 4 mmHg; P < 0.05) and in reversing LVH (nitrendipine: from 87 +/- 2 to 81 +/- 1 g/m2; captopril: from 89 +/- 2 to 85 +/- 2 g/m2; P = 0.0001). Neither the left ventricular end-diastolic volume index nor the left ventricular ejection fraction changed significantly during the treatment period.
                Nitrendipine is as effective as captopril in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure and in reversing LVH. Neither drug showed any negative side effects on fasting plasma glucose and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, and both maintain constant AERs. Most hypertensive renal transplant recipients require two or more antihypertensive medications to achieve blood pressure control. However, which medications must be combined is still a matter of debate.
                A prospective randomized open-label blinded evaluation trial comparing the six-month effects of the amlodipine-enalapril combination (n = 32) vs. enalapril alone (n = 33) and vs. amlodipine alone (n = 34) on arterial pressure, renal function, albuminuria and tolerability.
                At six months, diastolic arterial pressure was more adequately controlled (i.e., <90 mmHg) in the combination group than in the amlodipine and enalapril groups (100% vs. 82.4% and 84.8%, respectively, p = 0.038). The same trend was observed for systolic arterial pressure (65.6% vs. 58.8% and 51.5%, NS). The six-month change in albuminuria was similar in the combination group and in the enalapril group (-64.7% vs. -59.5%); however, patients in the combination group exhibited a greater reduction in albuminuria than in the amlodipine group (-64.7% vs. -29.0%, p = 0.002). As compared with baseline values, serum creatinine and potassium remained unchanged in the combination group, whereas they increased by 9 +/- 12 micromol/L (p = 0.01) and by 0.2 +/- 0.4 mmol/L (p < 0.01), respectively, in the enalapril group. The cyclosporine trough levels remained unchanged in the combination group, but increased in the amlodipine group.
                Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)-calcium-channel blocker (CCB) combination controls arterial pressure more adequately than ACEI alone or CCB alone, reduces albuminuria and may prevent the ACEI-induced initial rise in serum creatinine.
There are no clinically meaningful BP lowering differences between different ACE inhibitors. The BP lowering effect of ACE inhibitors is modest; the magnitude of trough BP lowering at one-half the manufacturers' maximum recommended dose and above is -8/-5 mm Hg. Furthermore, 60 to 70% of this trough BP lowering effect occurs with recommended starting doses. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with ACE inhibitors because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials.