Search

The aim of this trial was to study the treatment of hypertension in the elderly, comparing a new oxazoline antihypertensive agent, rilmenidine, with the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (HCZ). After 2 weeks on placebo, 88 elderly patients (mean age 75 years; 65 women), corresponding to strict inclusion criteria, were randomized to 8 weeks double-blind monotherapy with rilmenidine 1-2 mg/day (n = 46) or HCZ 25-50 mg/day (n = 42), with administration of potassium supplements as required. Particular emphasis was placed on the evaluation of safety: blood screens were repeated after 2, 4, and 8 weeks of treatment and symptoms were systematically evaluated every 2 weeks. The rilmenidine and HCZ groups were comparable at randomization, with baseline supine systolic/diastolic blood pressures of 167/101 mm Hg and 172/101 mm Hg, respectively. Both drugs induced a significant decrease in blood pressure: at 8 weeks, supine blood pressure had decreased to 154/89 mm Hg and to 155/87 mm Hg in the rilmenidine and HCZ groups, respectively (difference not significant between groups). Changes in heart rate did not differ significantly between groups (-3 bpm at 8 weeks). Drug-related symptoms were rare and the incidence was similar in both groups. Weight decreased significantly in the HCZ group by 1 kg (p < 0.001) and did not change in the rilmenidine group. After 8 weeks of monotherapy, expected variations in serum biochemistry were detected in the HCZ group, resulting in a significant difference in comparison with the rilmenidine group: serum potassium and chloride decreased significantly and uric acid levels increased significantly in the HCZ group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

A multicentre randomised double-blind trial was performed in order to compare the therapeutic efficacy and acceptability of the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor perindopril with those of atenolol in mild to moderate hypertension. After one month of placebo, 173 patients with supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between 95 and 125 mmHg were randomised to receive perindopril 4 mg once daily or atenolol 50 mg once daily. Monthly assessments were made for three months. Treatment was adjusted at these visits if supine DBP was greater than 90 mmHg; the dose was first doubled (8 mg perindopril or 100 mg atenolol once daily) and then hydrochlorothiazide was added. The pretreatment blood pressure levels were similar in both groups. Supine DBP was 105.5 +/- 0.9 mmHg (n = 85) in the perindopril group and 106.9 +/- 0.9 mmHg (n = 88) in the atenolol group. At the end of the third month, the study target blood pressure (supine DBP less than or equal to 90 mmHg) was achieved in a significantly (P = 0.006) larger percentage of patients in the perindopril group (78%) than in the atenolol group (58%). This appeared to be due to a greater potentiation of the antihypertensive effect by the addition of diuretic to perindopril than to atenolol. The fall in systolic blood pressure was significantly greater in the perindopril group than in the atenolol group (supine: 26.5 +/- 2.0 mmHg vs. 20.6 +/- 2.0 mmHg; P = 0.042) although the fall in DBP was comparable (supine: perindopril 17.4 +/- 0.9 mmHg, atenolol 15.6 +/- 1.1 mmHg; P = 0.195).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

In a double-blind study with parallel groups 195 hypertensive patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either conventional tablets of metoprolol, 100 mg once daily, or a new controlled-release (CR) formulation of metoprolol, 100 mg once daily. The dose was doubled if the patient's diastolic blood pressure remained greater than or equal to 95 mmHg after six weeks on 100 mg, whereas well-controlled patients continued on 100 mg once daily for a further six-week period. In the metoprolol tablet group the 200 mg dose was administered in the form of Durules. There was a significant reduction from the placebo baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate at 24 h after both six weeks and 12 weeks of active treatment; no significant difference in the mean reduction from baseline between the two groups was demonstrated. However, significantly more patients responded to treatment with metoprolol CR when compared with those patients taking metoprolol tablets. After six weeks of active treatment 61% of the metoprolol CR group and 56% of the conventional metoprolol tablet group had a diastolic blood pressure less than 95 mmHg. After another six weeks the corresponding figures were 83% and 69% respectively. Between week 6 and 12, 36% of patients in the metoprolol CR group and 42% of patients in the conventional metoprolol tablet group were receiving a 200 mg dose. All formulations of metoprolol were well-tolerated. Fewer subjective symptoms were reported during active treatment than during the placebo phase. There were no differences between the groups with regard to changes in laboratory variables from baseline, changes in all combined symptoms, or changes in any one symptom.

In a double-blind study with parallel groups 195 hypertensive patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either conventional tablets of metoprolol, 100 mg once daily, or a new controlled-release (CR) formulation of metoprolol, 100 mg once daily. The dose was doubled if the patient's diastolic blood pressure remained ≥95 mmHg after six weeks on 100 mg, whereas well-controlled patients continued on 100 mg once daily for a further six-week period. In the metoprolol tablet group the 200 mg dose was administered in the form of Durules. There was a significant reduction from the placebo baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate at 24 h after both six weeks and 12 weeks of active treatment; no significant difference in the mean reduction from baseline between the two groups was demonstrated. However, significantly more patients responded to treatment with metoprolol CR when compared with those patients taking metoprolol tablets. After six weeks of active treatment 61% of the metoprolol CR group and 56% of the conventional metoprolol tablet group had a diastolic blood pressure <95 mmHg. After another six weeks the corresponding figures were 83% and 69% respectively. Between week 6 and 12, 36% of patients in the metoprolol CR group and 42% of patients in the conventional metoprolol tablet group were receiving a 200 mg dose. All formulations of metoprolol were well-tolerated. Fewer subjective symptoms were reported during active treatment than during the placebo phase. There were no differences between the groups with regard to changes in laboratory variables from baseline, changes in all combined symptoms, or changes in any one symptom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]