Beta-blockers versus diuretics in hypertensive men: main results from the HAPPHY trial. Randomised trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and beta-blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) study. Low-dose antihypertensive treatment with a thiazide diuretic is not diabetogenic. A 10-year controlled trial with bendroflumethiazide. Influences of educational interventions and adverse news about calcium-channel blockers on first-line prescribing of antihypertensive drugs to elderly people in British Columbia. Bendrofluazide fails to reduce elevated blood pressure levels in the immediate post-stroke period. Pharmaceutical care program for patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Report of a double-blind clinical trial with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Morbidity and mortality in patients randomised to double-blind treatment with a long-acting calcium-channel blocker or diuretic in the International Nifedipine GITS study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT). A randomized, controlled trial comparing diltiazem, hydrochlorothiazide, and their combination in the therapy of essential hypertension. A multifactorial trial design to assess combination therapy in hypertension. Treatment with bisoprolol and hydrochlorothiazide. Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK trial. Beta blockade, diuretics, and salt restriction for the management of mild hypertension: a randomised double blind trial. Comparison of a chronotherapeutically administered beta blocker vs. a traditionally administered beta blocker in patients with 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. Calcium antagonists are a first-line treatment for hypertension. The effectiveness of diltiazem, a non-dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, in reducing cardiovascular morbidity or mortality is unclear. We compared the effects of diltiazem with that of diuretics, beta-blockers, or both on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients.
                In a prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint study, we enrolled 10,881 patients, aged 50-74 years, at health centres in Norway and Sweden, who had diastolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or more. We randomly assigned patients diltiazem, or diuretics, beta-blockers, or both. The combined primary endpoint was fatal and non-fatal stroke, myocardial infarction, and other cardiovascular death. Analysis was done by intention to treat.
                Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were lowered effectively in the diltiazem and diuretic and beta-blocker groups (reduction 20.3/18.7 vs 23.3/18.7 mm Hg; difference in systolic reduction p<0.001). A primary endpoint occurred in 403 patients in the diltiazem group and in 400 in the diuretic and beta-blocker group (16.6 vs 16.2 events per 1000 patient-years; relative risk 1.00 [95% CI 0.87-1.15], p=0.97). Fatal and non-fatal stroke occurred in 159 patients in the diltiazem group and in 196 in the diuretic and beta-blocker group (6.4 vs 7.9 events per 1000 patient-years; 0.80 [0.65-0.99], p=0.04) and fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction in 183 and 157 patients (7.4 vs 6.3 events per 1000 patient-years; 1.16 [0.94-1.44], p=0.17).
                Diltiazem was as effective as treatment based on diuretics, beta-blockers, or both in preventing the combined primary endpoint of all stroke, myocardial infarction, and other cardiovascular death. Blood pressure (BP) and metabolic variables were determined initially and after 1, 2, 4, 6 and 10 years' treatment in two groups of hypertensive men (n = 53 each) randomized to bendroflumethiazide 2.5-5 mg/day or propranolol 160-320 mg daily. There was no significant differences in BP or metabolic variables between the two groups at entry. BP was reduced to the same degree by both treatments. Five men in the propranolol group and one man in the thiazide group developed clinically overt diabetes during follow-up. Fasting blood sugar increased slightly but significantly though equally in both groups. Oral glucose tolerance was initially impaired to the same degree in both groups but improved significantly during treatment with both drugs. Fasting insulin increased slightly but to the same degree. While serum potassium decreased significantly in the thiazide group, the total body potassium was unchanged in this group. In the propranolol group, serum potassium rose, while total body potassium decreased significantly. Serum urate increased in both groups, though slightly more during thiazide treatment. One case of gout was found in each group. There was no difference in serum lipids between the two groups. The finding in this long-term trial indicate that in middle-aged men with mild to moderate hypertension a low-dose thiazide diuretic like bendroflumethiazide is as effective and safe an antihypertensive agent as the beta-blocker propranolol is and that it does not induce diabetes. The total clinical picture favors the retention of thiazide diuretics as a first choice drug in hypertension. The way in which dissemination of evidence changes medical practice needs to be better understood. Controversy about calcium-channel blockers (CCB) in the past 3 years has provided a natural experiment, enabling assessment of the impact of media stories, a national warning letter, a teleconference, small group workshops, and newsletters on first-line prescribing of antihypertensive drugs.
                We included all physicians (4403) in British Columbia who prescribed a thiazide diuretic, beta-blocker, inhibitor of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), or CCB as the first antihypertensive agent for 36,507 residents aged 66 years and over, with no previous or concurrent sign of underlying cardiovascular disease. We used a database covering all prescriptions to elderly people to measure the change in proportion of newly treated patients who received each class of drug as first-line therapy. We used a matched cohort design for assessment of the teleconference and workshops, a randomised community design for the newsletters, and time-series analysis for the media impacts.
                The proportion of patients who received a CCB as first-line therapy declined gradually from 22% in early 1994 to 15% in late 1996. This proportion was not affected by two waves of adverse news about CCBs in 1995, but fell by 5% for 5 months and by 3% for 1 month after two waves in 1996. The proportion of patients who received either a CCB or an ACE inhibitor as first-line therapy, contrary to guidelines, was still 42% overall in 1996. The workshops and newsletters were followed by shifts from first-line CCB to first-line thiazide prescribing.
                Changes in prescribing practices occur gradually with the accumulation of small impacts from educational interventions and lay media attention. Blood pressure (BP) levels, beat-to-beat blood pressure variability, dynamic cerebral autoregulation and cardiac baroreceptor sensitivity are frequently abnormal following acute stroke and are associated with an adverse short- and long-term prognosis. Thiazide diuretics are effective antihypertensive agents in preventing primary and secondary stroke, but their hypotensive and cerebral autoregulatory effects in the immediate post-stroke period have not been studied.
                Thirty-seven hypertensive neuroradiologically proven ischaemic stroke patients were randomized in a double-blind, placebo controlled, parallel group study to bendrofluazide 2.5 mg daily or matching placebo, within 96 h of stroke onset, for a 7-day period. Casual and non-invasive beat-to-beat arterial BP levels, cerebral blood flow velocity, ECG and transcutaneous carbon dioxide levels were measured within 70 +/- 20 h of cerebral infarction and again 7 days later. Dynamic cerebral autoregulatory indices, pulse interval, BP variability and cardiac baroreceptor sensitivity were also calculated.
                Small, non-significant falls were seen in casual and beat-to-beat BP levels over the 7-day period in both active and placebo-treated patients with no differences between treatments. No significant changes were seen in dynamic cerebral autoregulation or in cardiac baroreceptor sensitivity during the follow-up in either group.
                Following acute ischaemic stroke, the standard dose of bendrofluazide at 2.5 mg daily in this study sample did not lower systemic BP levels over the subsequent 7-day period. There was no evidence that bendrofluazide significantly altered cerebral autoregulation or improved cardiac baroreceptor sensitivity post-ictus. Bendrofluazide appears to be an ineffective hypotensive agent at the standard dosage in the initial post-stroke period.
                Copyright 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel. 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. The efficacy of antihypertensive drugs newer than diuretics and beta-blockers has not been established. We compared the effects of the calcium-channel blocker nifedipine once daily with the diuretic combination co-amilozide on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients with hypertension.
                We did a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial in Europe and Israel in 6321 patients aged 55-80 years with hypertension (blood pressure > or = 150/95 mm Hg, or > or = 160 mm Hg systolic). Patients had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. We randomly assigned patients nifedipine 30 mg in a long-acting gastrointestinal-transport-system (GITS) formulation (n=3157), or co-amilozide (hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg [corrected] plus amiloride 2.5 mg; n=3164). Dose titration was by dose doubling, and addition of atenolol 25-50 mg or enalapril 5-10 mg. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, or stroke. Analysis was done by intention to treat.
                Primary outcomes occurred in 200 (6.3%) patients in the nifedipine group and in 182 (5.8%) in the co-amilozide group (18.2 vs 16.5 events per 1000 patient-years; relative risk 1.10 [95% CI 0.91-1.34], p=0.35). Overall mean blood pressure fell from 173/99 mm Hg (SD 14/8) to 138/82 mm Hg (12/7). There was an 8% excess of withdrawals from the nifedipine group because of peripheral oedema (725 vs 518, p<0.0001), but serious adverse events were more frequent in the co-amilozide group (880 vs 796, p=0.02). Deaths were mainly non-vascular (nifedipine 176 vs co-amilozide 172; p=0.81). 80% of the primary events occurred in patients receiving randomised treatment (157 nifedipine, 147 co-amilozide, difference 0.33% [-0.7 to 1.4]).
                Nifedipine once daily and co-amilozide were equally effective in preventing overall cardiovascular or cerebrovascular complications. The choice of drug can be decided by tolerability and blood-pressure response rather than long-term safety or efficacy. To compare the efficacy of combination therapy with sustained-release diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide (DTZ SR-HCTZ) with that of monotherapy with DTZ SR, HCTZ, or placebo in the treatment of essential hypertension; and to determine whether the addition of a diuretic to diltiazem at apparent optimum doses of each agent significantly enhances their antihypertensive effects.
                Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial with a 6-week treatment phase.
                Private and university-based clinics.
                Subjects of either sex, ranging in age from 18-70 years, with a diagnosis of stable essential hypertension made from two consecutive weekly mean supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) readings of 95 mm Hg or above to 110 mm Hg or less that varied 7 mm Hg or less after 4-6 weeks in the baseline phase. Of the patients enrolled, 298 met the inclusion criteria.
                Combination therapy with DTZ SR-HCTZ 120 mg-12.5 mg, or monotherapy with DTZ SR 120 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg, or placebo was administered twice daily.
                Combination therapy with DTZ SR-HCTZ lowered both supine DBP and SBP significantly (p < 0.005) more than either single agent. The combination also lowered DBP and SBP significantly more than either monotherapy. During a 12-hour in-clinic monitoring period spanning a dosing interval, both the combination and DTZ SR therapies maintained efficacy, whereas the antihypertensive effects of HCTZ dissipated after 8 hours. Treatment-related adverse events for the combination and HCTZ were similar but slightly greater than those for DTZ SR and placebo.
                The addition of a diuretic to sustained-release diltiazem produced an enhanced antihypertensive effect compared with monotherapy with either individual agent. 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. 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. 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. Increasing systolic blood pressure and heart rate during the early morning results in increased myocardial oxygen demand. The use of beta blockers during this period may decrease cardiac workload, particularly in beta-blocker sensitive patients. The impact of a new chronotherapeutic beta blocker was assessed in 44 hypertensive patients. Patients were randomized to delayed-release propranolol (INP) dosed at 10 p.m. or to traditionally dosed propranolol (ILA) dosed at 8 a.m. for 4 weeks, following which they were switched to the alternative formulation for 4 weeks. Thirty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and pharmacokinetic measurements were obtained. INP and ILA resulted in significant reductions in mean 24-hour blood pressure (-9.0/-6.9 mm Hg and -10.4/-7.7 mm Hg, respectively). The top 25% of responders to high-dose propranolol (sensitive patients) were compared on each formulation. Mean trough reductions were -8.0/-6.7 mm Hg and -7.6/-5.8 mm Hg, respectively. Mean blood pressure reductions in the beta-blocker sensitive patients (n = 11) between 6 a.m. and noon were -15.2/-11.9 mm Hg on INP and -8.0/-4.6 mm Hg on ILA. Heart rate reduction was -14.1 bpm and double product reduction was -3319 in the INP patients between 6 a.m. and 12 noon compared with -10.5 and -2209 in the ILA patients. This study suggests that INP and ILA are effective once-a-day beta blockers, but the use of delayed-release propanolol results in a greater reduction in double product between 6 a.m. and noon in beta-blocker sensitive patients than does traditionally dosed propranolol.
Addition of a beta-blocker to diuretics or calcium-channel blockers reduces BP by 6/4mmHg at 1 times the starting dose and by 8/6 mmHg at 2 times the starting dose. When the blood pressure lowering effect of beta-blockers from this review was compared to that of thiazide diuretics from our previous review (Chen 2009), second-line beta-blockers reduce systolic BP to the same extent as second-line thiazide diuretics, but reduce diastolic BP to a greater degree. The different effect on diastolic BP means that beta-blockers have little or no effect on pulse pressure whereas thiazides cause a significant dose-related decrease in pulse pressure. This difference in the pattern of BP lowering with beta-blockers as compared to thiazides might be the explanation for the fact that beta-blockers appear to be less effective at reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes than thiazide diuretics, particularly in older individuals.