Reduction of morning blood pressure surge after treatment with nifedipine GITS at bedtime, but not upon awakening, in essential hypertension. Chronotherapy with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril in essential hypertension: improved blood pressure control with bedtime dosing. Five-year findings of the hypertension detection and follow-up program. I. Reduction in mortality of persons with high blood pressure, including mild hypertension. Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group. Comparison of the efficacy of morning versus evening administration of telmisartan in essential hypertension. Administration-time-dependent effects of olmesartan on the ambulatory blood pressure of essential hypertension patients. Administration time-dependent effects of valsartan on ambulatory blood pressure in elderly hypertensive subjects. Treatment of non-dipper hypertension with bedtime administration of valsartan. Administration time-dependent effects of valsartan on ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive subjects. Efficacy and safety of a once daily graded-release diltiazem formulation in essential hypertension. Preventing increases in early-morning blood pressure, heart rate, and the rate-pressure product with controlled onset extended release verapamil at bedtime versus enalapril, losartan, and placebo on arising. Placebo effect and adaptation to noninvasive monitoring of BP. Morning versus evening amlodipine treatment: effect on circadian blood pressure profile in essential hypertensive patients. Resistant arterial hypertension and hyperlipidemia: atorvastatin, not vitamin C, for blood pressure control. The effect on 24 h blood pressure control of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (perindopril) administered in the morning or at night. Trial of Nonpharmacologic Intervention in the Elderly (TONE). Design and rationale of a blood pressure control trial. Hypotensive resuscitation during active hemorrhage: impact on in-hospital mortality. Effects of aggressive blood pressure control in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients on albuminuria, retinopathy and strokes. Mortality and morbidity results from the European Working Party on High Blood Pressure in the Elderly trial. Pharmaceutical care program for patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Report of a double-blind clinical trial with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Effect of timing of administration on the plasma ACE inhibitory activity and the antihypertensive effect of quinapril.
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. Clinical studies have demonstrated a different effect on blood pressure of some angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors when administered in the morning versus the evening. Their administration at bedtime resulted in a higher effect on nighttime blood pressure as compared with morning dosing. This study investigated the administration time-dependent effects of ramipril on ambulatory blood pressure. We studied 115 untreated hypertensive patients, 46.7+/-11.2 years of age, randomly assigned to receive ramipril (5 mg/d) as a monotherapy either on awakening or at bedtime. Blood pressure was measured for 48 hours before and after 6 weeks of treatment. The blood pressure reduction during diurnal activity was similar for both treatment times. Bedtime administration of ramipril, however, was significantly more efficient than morning administration in reducing asleep blood pressure. The awake:asleep blood pressure ratio was decreased after ramipril on awakening but significantly increased toward a more dipping pattern after bedtime dosing. The proportion of patients with controlled ambulatory blood pressure increased from 43% to 65% (P=0.019) with bedtime treatment. Nocturnal blood pressure regulation is significantly better achieved at bedtime as compared with morning administration of ramipril, without any loss in efficacy during diurnal active hours. This might be clinically important, because nighttime blood pressure has been shown to be a more relevant marker of cardiovascular risk than diurnal mean values. The change in the dose-response curve, increased proportion of controlled patients, and improved efficacy on nighttime blood pressure with administration of ramipril at bedtime should be taken into account when prescribing this angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor for treatment of essential hypertension. The Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program (HDFP), in a community-based, randomized controlled trial involving 10,940 persons with high blood pressure (BP), compared the effects on five-year mortality of a systematic antihypertensive treatment program (Stepped Care [SC]) and referral to community medical therapy (Referred Care [RC]). Participants, recruited by population-based screening of 158,906 people aged 30 to 69 years in 14 communities througout the United States, were randomly assigned to SC or RC groups within each center and by entry diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (90 to 104, 105 to 114, and 115 + mm Hg). Over the five years of the study, more than two thirds of the SC participants continued to receive medication, and more than 50% achieved BP levels within the normotensive range, at or below the HDFP goal for DBP. Controls of BP was consistently better for the SC than for the RC group. Five-year mortality from all causes was 17% lower for the SC group compared to the RC group (6.4 vs 7.7 per 100, P less than .01) and 20% lower for the SC subgroup with entry DBP of 90 to 104 mm Hg compared to the corresponding RC subgroup (5.9 vs 7.4 per 100, P less than .01). These findings of the HDFP indicate that the systematic effective management of hypertension has a great potential for reducing mortality for the large numbers of people with high BP in the population, including those with "mild" hypertension. Valsartan administration at bedtime as opposed to on wakening improves the sleep time-relative blood pressure decline toward a more dipper pattern without loss in 24-hour efficacy. Yet to be determined is whether this administration time-dependent efficacy is a class-related feature, characteristic of all angiotensin receptor blockers or specific only to valsartan. Terminal half-life is a major difference between angiotensin receptor blockers, being largest ( approximately 24 hours) for telmisartan. This trial investigated the administration time-dependent antihypertensive efficacy of telmisartan. We studied 215 patients with hypertension (114 men and 101 women), 46.4+/-12.0 years of age, randomly assigned to receive telmisartan (80 mg/d) as a monotherapy either on awakening or at bedtime. Blood pressure was measured for 48 hours before and after 12 weeks of treatment. The significant blood pressure reduction after treatment was similar for both groups. Bedtime administration of telmisartan, however, was more efficient than morning dosing in reducing the nocturnal blood pressure mean. The sleep time-relative blood pressure decline was slightly reduced after telmisartan on awakening but significantly increased with bedtime dosing, thus reducing the prevalence of nondipping from baseline by 76%. Telmisartan administered at bedtime, as opposed to morning dosing, improved the sleep time-relative blood pressure decline toward a more dipper pattern without loss in 24-hour efficacy. Nocturnal BP regulation is significantly better achieved with bedtime dosing of telmisartan. Results from this prospective trial suggest that these beneficial features of bedtime dosing may be class related for angiotensin receptor blockers. These results should be taken into account when prescribing this class of antihypertensive medication for treatment of essential hypertension. Previous studies established that a single daily dose of olmesartan remains effective for the entire 24 h without alteration of the day-night blood pressure (BP) pattern. On the other hand, the administration of valsartan or telmisartan at bedtime, as opposed to upon wakening, improves the sleep-time relative BP decline toward a greater dipper pattern without loss of 24 h efficacy. Yet to be determined is whether this administration-time-dependent efficacy is a class-related feature, characteristic of all angiotensin-receptor-blocker (ARB) medications. We studied 123 grade 1 and 2 hypertensive patients, 46.6+/-12.3 yrs of age, randomly assigned to receive olmesartan (20 mg/day) as a monotherapy either upon awakening or at bedtime for three months. BP was measured by ambulatory monitoring for 48 consecutive hours before and after treatment. The 24 h BP reduction was similar for both treatment times. Administration of olmesartan at bedtime, however, was significantly more efficient than morning administration in reducing the nocturnal BP mean. The sleep-time relative BP decline was slightly reduced with olmesartan ingestion upon awakening but significantly increased with ingestion at bedtime, thus reducing the prevalence of non-dipping from baseline by 48%. Olmesartan administration at bedtime, as opposed to in the morning, improved the awake/asleep BP ratio toward a greater dipper pattern without loss of 24 h efficacy. Nocturnal BP regulation was significantly better achieved with bedtime as compared to morning dosing of olmesartan. These effects are comparable to those previously reported for valsartan and telmisartan, thus suggesting that they may be class-related features of ARB medications in spite of differences in their half-life kinetics. These administration-time-dependent effects should be taken into account when prescribing ARB medications for treatment of essential hypertension. Previous results have indicated that valsartan administration at bed-time, as opposed to upon wakening, improves the diurnal/nocturnal ratio of blood pressure (BP) toward a normal dipping pattern, without loss of 24 h efficacy. This ratio is characterized by a progressive decrease with aging. Accordingly, we investigated the administration time-dependent antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan, an angiotensin blocking agent, in elderly hypertensive patients. We studied 100 elderly patients with grade 1-2 essential hypertension (34 men and 66 women), 68.2+/-4.9 years of age, randomly assigned to receive valsartan (160 mg/d) as a monotherapy either upon awakening or at bed-time. BP was measured for 48 h by ambulatory monitoring, at 20 min intervals between 07:00 to 23:00 h and at 30 min intervals at night, before and after 3 months of therapy. Physical activity was simultaneously monitored every minute by wrist actigraphy to accurately determine the duration of sleep and wake spans to enable the accurate calculation of the diurnal and nocturnal means of BP for each subject. There was a highly significant BP reduction after 3 months of valsartan treatment (p < 0.001). The reduction was slightly larger with bed-time dosing (15.3 and 9.2 mm Hg reduction in the 24 h mean of systolic and diastolic BP, respectively) than with morning dosing (12.3 and 6.3 mm Hg reduction in the 24 h mean of systolic and diastolic BP, respectively). The diurnal/nocturnal ratio, measured as the nocturnal decline of BP relative to the diurnal mean, was unchanged in the group ingesting valsartan upon awakening (-1.0 and -0.3 for systolic and diastolic BP; p > 0.195). This ratio was significantly increased (6.6 and 5.4 for systolic and diastolic BP; p < 0.001) when valsartan was ingested at bed-time. The reduction of the nocturnal mean was doubled in the group ingesting valsartan at bed-time, as compared to the group ingesting it in the morning (p < 0.001). In elderly hypertensive patients, mainly characterized by a diminished nocturnal decline in BP, bed-time valsartan dosing is better than morning dosing since it improves efficacy during the nighttime sleep span, with the potential reduction in cardiovascular risk that has been associated with a normalized diurnal/nocturnal BP ratio. Previous results have indicated that valsartan administration at bedtime, as opposed to upon wakening, may improve the diurnal: nocturnal ratio of blood pressure without loss in 24-h coverage and efficacy.
                To investigate the administration time-dependent antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan in non-dipper patients.
                We studied 148 non-dipper patients with grade 1-2 essential hypertension, aged 53.0+/-12.6 years, who were randomly assigned to receive valsartan (160 mg/day) as a monotherapy either on awakening or at bedtime. Blood pressure was measured every 20 min during the day and every 30 min at night for 48 consecutive hours before and after 3 months of treatment. Physical activity was simultaneously monitored every minute by wrist actigraphy to accurately calculate the diurnal and nocturnal means of blood pressure on a per subject basis.
                The significant blood pressure reduction after 3 months of valsartan (P<0.001) was similar for both treatment times (13.1 and 8.5 mmHg reduction in the 24-h mean of systolic and diastolic blood pressure with morning administration; 14.7 and 10.3 mmHg with bedtime administration; P>0.126 for treatment-time effect). The diurnal: nocturnal ratio of blood pressure was significantly increased only when valsartan was administered before bedtime, which resulted in 75% of the patients in this group reverting to dippers, a significant increase in the percentage of patients with controlled blood pressure over 24 h, and a reduction in urinary albumin excretion.
                In non-dipper hypertensive patients, dosing time with valsartan should be chosen at bedtime, for improved efficacy during the nocturnal resting hours, as well as the potential associated reduction in cardiovascular risk. This study investigated the administration time-dependent antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker. We studied 90 subjects (30 men and 60 women), 49.0+/-14.3 (mean+/-SD) years of age with stage 1 to 2 essential hypertension; they were randomly assigned to receive valsartan (160 mg/d) as a monotherapy either on awakening or at bedtime. Blood pressure was measured by ambulatory monitoring every 20 minutes during the day and every 30 minutes at night for 48 consecutive hours before and after 3 months of treatment. Physical activity was simultaneously monitored every minute by wrist actigraphy to accurately calculate the diurnal and nocturnal means of blood pressure on a per-subject basis. The highly significant blood pressure reduction after 3 months of treatment with valsartan (P<0.001) was similar for both treatment times (17.0 and 11.3 mm Hg reduction in the 24-hour mean of systolic and diastolic blood pressure with morning administration and 14.6 and 11.4 mm Hg reduction with bedtime administration; P>0.174 for treatment time effect). Valsartan administration at bedtime as opposed to on wakening resulted in a highly significant average increase by 6% (P<0.001) in the diurnal-nocturnal ratio of blood pressure; this corresponded to a 73% relative reduction in the number of nondipper patients. The findings confirm that valsartan efficiently reduces blood pressure throughout the entire 24 hours, independent of treatment time. They also suggest that time of treatment can be chosen according to the dipper status of a patient to optimize the effect of antihypertensive therapy, an issue that deserves further investigation. The efficacy and safety of a chronotherapeutic, graded-release diltiazem HCl extended-release (GRD) 120-, 240-, 360- and 540-mg dose administered once-daily at bedtime (10 PM) were evaluated in a 7-week randomized, double-blind comparison to placebo and to GRD 360 mg administered once-daily at 8 AM in 478 patients with moderate-to-severe essential hypertension.
                We assessed the change from baseline to end point in trough diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 6 PM to 10 PM and in mean DBP from 6 AM to 12 noon between GRD 360 mg PM and GRD 360 mg AM, measured by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).
                Bedtime doses of GRD showed dose-related mean reductions in trough DBP that were significant for GRD doses of 240 mg and higher. Bedtime GRD 360 mg was associated with a significantly greater reduction in mean DBP between 6 AM and 12 noon compared to morning GRD 360 mg with a least squares mean for treatment difference of -3.3 mm Hg (P =.0004). Similar dose-related and significant reductions in systolic BP (SBP) and heart rate (HR) were obtained. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) for all GRD groups (44.5%) was less than that obtained for the placebo group (49.3%). The 540-mg group showed an incidence of AEs (43.5%) similar to that observed for the 240-mg group (42.6%).
                The GRD dose-dependently significantly reduces BP and HR over the 24-h interval after once-daily bedtime dosing. Further greater reductions were obtained between 6 AM and 12 noon, when circadian BP is highest, compared to morning administration of the same dose. The 540-mg GRD was safe, well tolerated, and offers further therapeutic option for patients with severe hypertension who required additional BP control. Therapeutic agents for the treatment of hypertension may differ in their efficacy during the early-morning period, a time when both morbid and mortal cardiovascular events are increased compared with other times of the day.
                We studied the effects of a chronotherapeutic delivery system of verapamil (controlled-onset extended release [COER]-24 system) dosed at bedtime versus conventional morning administration of both enalapril and losartan on the blood pressure (BP), heart rate, and the heart rate systolic BP product during the first 4 hours after awakening in a placebo-controlled, forced-titration trial. There were 357 men and women enrolled in the trial with an untreated sitting diastolic BP of 95 to 114 mm Hg and ambulatory daytime diastolic BP > or =85 mm Hg. Patients were randomized to either COER-verapamil hydrochloride each evening (240 mg titrated to 360 mg), enalapril each morning (10 mg titrated to 20 mg), losartan each morning (50 mg titrated to 100 mg), or placebo. Early morning assessments of BP, heart rate, and the heart rate systolic BP product were performed by use of 24-hour ambulatory recordings after 4 weeks (low dose) and 8 weeks (high dose) of therapy.
                Results were similar at weeks 4 and 8 for all treatment groups except that the magnitude of change was greater at week 8. After 8 weeks of treatment, reductions in early morning BP by COER-verapamil were significantly greater (-15/-10 mm Hg) than enalapril (-9/-7 mm Hg, P <.01) and losartan (-8/-5 mm Hg, P <.001). COER-verapamil also led to greater reductions in morning heart rate, the rate-pressure product, and the rate-of-rise of BP compared with the other 2 active treatment groups. Reductions in mean 24-hour BP were greater in patients treated with COER-verapamil compared with placebo and losartan, and similar to reductions in patients treated with enalapril.
                Bedtime administration of an agent designed to parallel the circadian rhythm of BP and heart rate led to significantly greater early morning hemodynamic effects compared with other conventional once-daily antihypertensive agents dosed in the morning. Three 24 h ambulatory monitorings of BP were performed at two-week intervals in 21 untreated hypertensives (mean age 38 +/- 10 yrs, 13 males and 9 females). After the first baseline monitoring, the patients were randomised, according to a cross-over design, to one of the following sequences: no therapy to placebo or placebo to no therapy. At the end of each period, noninvasive ambulatory monitoring was performed. Mean +/- SE 24 h systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) pressures recorded at the first monitoring were 129.2 +/- 3.5 mmHg and 81.7 +/- 2.3 mmHg respectively. At the second and third monitorings, mean 24 h BP differences versus baseline levels were -2.9 +/- 1.8 and -4.7 +/- 1.7 mmHg for SBP, and -2.0 +/- 1.1 and -2.7 +/- 1.5 mmHg for DBP. Both SBP and DBP differences at repeated monitorings were significant by analysis of variance (P less than 0.05). No significant effects on BP of treatment sequence or of placebo administration were found. Analysis of covariance showed a significant relationship between initial 24 h BP and subsequent mean 24 h BP differences (SBP: beta = -0.260, DBP: beta = -0.124). ANOVA performed on waking and sleeping BP separately showed the observed differences to be significant only during waking hours. Regression analysis showed that the decrease in 24 h BP at repeated monitorings was significantly related to the extent of 'white coat'-induced BP increase only for DBP (P = 0.022). For both 24 h SBP and DBP, however, a negative correlation between the alarm reaction to the presence of the physician and 24 h BP decrease at repeated monitorings was observed. It is concluded that noninvasive ambulatory monitoring is subject to adaptative phenomena but not to placebo effect. Factors influencing the defence reactions to manual measurements and to ambulatory monitoring might be partly different. OBJECTIVE: To determine the antihypertensive efficacy and the potential impact on circadian blood pressure pattern of morning versus evening administration of amlodipine to essential hypertensive patients. METHODS: Twelve mild-to-moderate essential hypertensives were investigated in this open, randomized cross-over study. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured by use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring after a wash-out period of 1 week and after treatment schedules with 5 mg amlodipine once a day either at 0800 h or at 2000 h for 3 weeks. Effects were evaluated by linear and rhythm analysis using the ABPM-FIT program. RESULTS: Both morning and evening administrations of amlodipine significantly (P < 0.01) reduced the elevated systolic and diastolic blood pressures during daytime. However, due to baseline values being lower during night-time, a significant (P < 0.05) reduction was observed only in systolic, not in diastolic, blood pressure. Maximal blood pressure values were significantly (P </= 0.01) decreased by both treatment regimens, whereas nightly minimum values remained unchanged. The early morning rise in blood pressure was decreaseed after morning and slightly more pronounced aftger evening dosing of amlodipine. Though both amlodipine treatments more effectively reduced daytime blood pressure levels, the circadian profile was not greatly affected. Amlodipine treatment had no effect on heart rate. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that, independently from the dosing time, the long-acting calcium antagonist amlodipine sufficiently reduced blood pressure in essential hypertensive patients without increasing the nightly drop. The drug-induced decrase in the early morning rise in blood pressure may be advantageous in reducing the early morning cardiovascular risk. Hypertension is considered resistant if blood pressure cannot be reduced to <140/90 mmHg with an appropriate triple-drug regimen, including an oral diuretic, with all agents administered at maximal dosages. This definition has evolved with the development of new therapies and evidence-based data supporting treatment to lower BP goals.
                To assess whether vitamin C and atorvastatin improve endothelial function and blood pressure control in subjects with resistant arterial hypertension and dyslipidemia.
                Forty-eight hyperlipidemic subjects with RH (office systolic BP >140 mmHg and/or office diastolic BP >90 mmHg notwithstanding antihypertensive treatment with three medications in maximal doses) were randomized into three groups to receive additional medication for 8 weeks. Group VTC (n = 17)--mean 24 hour SBP 150.6 +/- 5.2 mmHg, DBP 86.1 +/- 3.3 mmHg, low density lipoprotein 158.1 +/- 24.5 mg/dl--received vitamin C 500 mg per day; Group ATR (n = 15)--mean 24 hour SBP 153.1 +/- 4.8 mmHg, DBP 87.1 +/- 6.7 mmHg, LDL 162.6 +/- 13.6 mg/dl--received atorvastatin 20 mg/day; and Group PLA (n = 16)--mean 24 hour SBP 151.1 +/- 7.4 mmHg, DBP 84.8 +/- 5.9 mmHg, LDL 156.7 +/- 26.1 mg/dl--received a placebo. High resolution ultrasound was used to calculate brachial artery flow-mediated dilation, and 24 hour ambulatory BP monitoring was performed at study entry and after 8 weeks.
                In the ATR group there were significant reductions of SBP (deltaSBP1-2: 13.7 +/- 5.6 mmHg, P 0.001), DBP (deltaDBP1-2: 7.8 +/- 5.7 mmHg, P 0.01), LDL (deltaLDL1-2: 67.7 +/- 28.3 mg/dl, P < 0.001) and improvement of brachial artery FMD (deltaFMD2-1: 4.2 +/- 2.6%). No significant changes in BP, LDL and FMD were observed in the other two groups.
                In subjects with RH and dyslipidemia, atorvastatin 20 mg/day compared to vitamin C 500 mg/day may help to achieve better BP control and improve endothelial function in a finite period. A larger trial is needed to assess the drug's efficacy in this population for longer periods. 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. 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. Traditional fluid resuscitation strategy in the actively hemorrhaging trauma patient emphasizes maintenance of a normal systolic blood pressure (SBP). One human trial has demonstrated improved survival when fluid resuscitation is restricted, whereas numerous laboratory studies have reported improved survival when resuscitation is directed to a lower than normal pressure. We hypothesized that fluid resuscitation titrated to a lower than normal SBP during the period of active hemorrhage would improve survival in trauma patients presenting to the hospital in hemorrhagic shock.
                Patients presenting in hemorrhagic shock were randomized to one of two fluid resuscitation protocols: target SBP > 100 mm Hg (conventional) or target SBP of 70 mm Hg (low). Fluid therapy was titrated to this endpoint until definitive hemostasis was achieved. In-hospital mortality, injury severity, and probability of survival were determined for each patient.
                One hundred ten patients were enrolled over 20 months, 55 in each group. The study cohort had a mean age of 31 years, and consisted of 79% male patients and 51% penetrating trauma victims. There was a significant difference in SBP observed during the study period (114 mm Hg vs. 100 mm Hg, p < 0.001). Injury Severity Score (19.65 +/- 11.8 vs. 23.64 +/- 13.8, p = 0.11) and the duration of active hemorrhage (2.97 +/- 1.75 hours vs. 2.57 +/- 1.46 hours, p = 0.20) were not different between groups. Overall survival was 92.7%, with four deaths in each group.
                Titration of initial fluid therapy to a lower than normal SBP during active hemorrhage did not affect mortality in this study. Reasons for the decreased overall mortality and the lack of differentiation between groups likely include improvements in diagnostic and therapeutic technology, the heterogeneous nature of human traumatic injuries, and the imprecision of SBP as a marker for tissue oxygen delivery. 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. A double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial of antihypertensive treatment was conducted in patients over the age of 60. Entry criteria included both a sitting diastolic blood pressure on placebo treatment in the range 90-119 mm Hg and a systolic pressure in the range 160-239 mm Hg. 840 patients were randomised either to active treatment (hydrochlorothiazide + triamterene) or to matching placebo. If the blood pressure remained raised, methyldopa was added to the active regimen and matching placebo in the placebo group. An overall intention-to-treat analysis, combining the double-blind part of the trial and all subsequent follow-up, revealed a non-significant change in total mortality rate (-9%, p = 0.41) but a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality rate (-27%, p = 0.037). The latter was due to a reduction in cardiac mortality (-38%, p = 0.036) and a non-significant decrease in cerebrovascular mortality (-32%, p = 0.16). In the double-blind part of the trial, total mortality rate was not significantly reduced (-26%, p = 0.077). Cardiovascular mortality was reduced in the actively treated group (-38%, p = 0.023), owing to a reduction in cardiac deaths (-47%, p = 0.048) and a non-significant decrease in cerebrovascular mortality (-43%, p = 0.15). Deaths from myocardial infarction were reduced (-60%, p = 0.043). Study-terminating morbid cardiovascular events were significantly reduced by active treatment (-60%, p = 0.0064). Non-terminating cerebrovascular events were reduced (-52%, p = 0.026), but the non-terminating cardiac events were not (+3%, p = 0.98). In the patients randomised to active treatment there were 29 fewer cardiovascular events and 14 fewer cardiovascular deaths per 1000 patient years during the double-blind part of the trial. 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. To assess whether timing of administration can influence the antihypertensive effect of quinapril, 18 patients with hypertension were studied with noninvasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Quinapril, 20 mg, was given at 8 AM or 10 PM for 4 weeks in a double-blind crossover fashion. To study the pattern of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition with the two treatment regimens, plasma ACE activity was measured in seven subjects 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 hours after quinapril administration. The 24-hour blood pressure profiles showed a more sustained antihypertensive action with the evening administration of quinapril compared with the morning administration of quinapril; as with the morning administration, a partial loss of effectiveness was observed during nighttime hours. Measurement of ACE activity showed that evening administration caused a less pronounced but a more sustained decline of plasma ACE. These findings show that 20 mg quinapril given once daily is effective in lowering blood pressure levels throughout a 24-hour period. The evening administration seems to be preferable because it causes a more favorable modulation of ACE inhibition and therefore determines a more homogeneous 24-hour blood pressure control.
No RCT reported on clinically relevant outcome measures - all cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and morbidity. There were no significant differences in overall adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events among the evening versus morning dosing regimens. In terms of BP lowering efficacy, for 24-hour SBP and DBP, the data suggests that better blood pressure control was achieved with bedtime dosing than morning administration of antihypertensive medication, the clinical significance of which is not known.