Search

Losartan potassium (DuP 753), an orally active angiotensin II receptor antagonist, is metabolized to a more potent active metabolite, E-3174, which contributes to losartan's long duration of action. The acute pharmacodynamic actions of intravenous (i.v.) E-3174 (20 mg infused over 4 h) were compared to placebo (vehicle) in two groups of patients with essential hypertension. Patients with supine diastolic blood pressure (SuDBP) of 100 to 120 mm Hg entered a 2-day inpatient phase and received vehicle on day 1. Patients with SuDBP > or = 95 mm Hg were randomized to double-blind treatment the next day. E-3174 significantly (P < .05) reduced SuDBP compared to placebo, beginning at approximately 100 min after the start of the infusion, with a maximum hypotensive effect at 8 h. Supine systolic blood pressure was also reduced by E-3174. Supine and standing heart rates did not differ between treatments. Mean E-3174 plasma levels were 324.6 ng/mL at 20 min and approximately 1000 ng/mL at the end of the 4-h infusion; during this time there was a modest decrease in blood pressure. Following the infusion, the relationship between plasma E-3174 levels and SuDBP was confounded by much larger decreases in blood pressure, which occurred as plasma drug concentrations declined. Urinary excretions of sodium, potassium, or chloride were not significantly altered by E-3174 nor was the fractional excretion of uric acid significantly different between groups. There were no drug-related or serious adverse experiences and no patient discontinued treatment due to an adverse experience.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

In a double-blind, crossover study, five white men with mild-to-moderate hypertension received placebo and fixed doses of atenolol, metoprolol, chlorthalidone, verapamil, and the combination of atenolol and chlorthalidone in a quasi-random order. Daily dosages were: atenolol, 100 mg; metoprolol, 200 mg; chlorthalidone, 50 mg; verapamil, 240 mg; and the same doses of atenolol and chlorthalidone in combination. Standard office and daytime ambulatory blood pressures were assessed at the end of each month-long trial. Atenolol, metoprolol, chlorthalidone, and verapamil controlled office blood pressure with similar reductions. Verapamil did not lower ambulatory blood pressure at this dose (which is lower than is now commonly used), but reductions in ambulatory blood pressure were similar for atenolol, metoprolol, and chlorthalidone. The combination of atenolol and chlorthalidone maintained blood pressure control more effectively than the single drug treatments in both office and ambulatory settings, and the combined hypotensive effects were additive. However, reductions in the office due to the combination appeared to overestimate hypotensive effectiveness in the ambulatory setting. This study suggests that the effectiveness of commonly prescribed antihypertensive regimens varies according to setting as well as drug, and that assessment of treatment effectiveness can be improved by automated ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

This double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial, conducted in elderly patients with mild hypertension, compared adherence to treatment, efficacy, side effects, and quality of life during treatment with transdermal clonidine versus oral sustained-release verapamil (verapamil-SR). Blood pressure declined significantly--from 148/95 mm Hg at baseline to 139/84 after titration and 135/86 after maintenance--with transdermal clonidine (n = 29), and from 156/96 to 144/85 and 148/88, respectively, with verapamil-SR (n = 29). Adverse event rates and quality-of-life questionnaire responses were similar in the two treatment groups. Transdermal clonidine was worn as directed during more than 96% of patient-weeks of treatment. Compliance with the oral verapamil regimen was less consistent: Verapamil-SR was taken as directed during approximately 50% of patient-weeks of therapy, and individual compliance, assessed by tablet counts, varied from 50-120%. In all, 86% of subjects were satisfied or highly satisfied with the convenience of transdermal therapy; 87% reported that side effects were slightly or not bothersome; 65% indicated that transdermal patches were more convenient than oral therapy; and almost 60% preferred transdermal to oral therapy. In this study transdermal clonidine and oral verapamil were equally safe and effective. A substantial majority of patients preferred transdermal to oral therapy, and adherence to treatment was greater with transdermal therapy.

This open crossover study in eight hypertensive patients defined a possible additive effect of oral guanabenz and captopril and determined a safe and effective dose range. Each group of four patients received placebo followed by ascending doses (on alternate days) of either guanabenz (2, 4, 8 mg) or captopril (6.25, 12.5, 25 mg) as initial monotherapy and were subsequently crossed over to the alternate monotherapy. Guanabenz and captopril were given concomitantly in increasing doses--the highest dose for both groups being 8 mg guanabenz/25 mg captopril. When guanabenz and captopril were given concomitantly, blood pressure decreased, both from the values during placebo administration and from the lead-in values recorded before each dose. Mean supine systolic and diastolic blood pressures after combination therapy decreased significantly (P less than .05) in a dose-related manner at most evaluations. The authors conclude that guanabenz and captopril have an additive effect when administered in combination to patients with hypertension.

Ambulatory blood pressure was studied as a function of posture, place, and mood in 131 subjects classified according to race, gender, and hypertensive status. The effect of posture was significant and explained a substantial proportion of within-subject variability. After controlling for posture, significant place and mood effects were observed when subjects were sitting but not when they were standing. Home vs. work differences in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure were significantly greater in Whites than in Blacks. Similar differences in systolic blood pressure were greater in mild hypertensive than in normotensive subjects. The results of this study underscore the need to control for effects of posture when interpreting ambulatory blood pressure readings.

The safety and efficacy of labetalol and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) were compared in a group of 34 patients aged 65 years or older with mild to moderate essential hypertension. After a 4-week placebo run-in period, during which all previous antihypertensive medication was discontinued, patients were randomized to receive either labetalol (100 mg bid) or HCTZ (25 mg bid). The patients' blood pressure and heart rate were evaluated biweekly and drug dosage was titrated (up to 400 mg and 50 mg bid of labetalol and HCTZ, respectively) to achieve a standing diastolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg. Patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring at the end of the placebo run-in period and again after the 6-week titration period. Both labetalol and HCTZ significantly (P less than .01) reduced standing systolic (-19.4 vs -27.7 mm Hg) and diastolic (-14.0 vs -15.2 mm Hg) blood pressures following 12 weeks of treatment. Both antihypertensives effectively controlled the 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure, however, the labetalol group experienced a significantly lower rate of rise in diastolic blood pressure (P = .02) and mean arterial pressure (P = .02) during the acceleration period (400-1200) compared to the HCTZ group. HCTZ caused significant decreases in serum potassium (P less than .01) and alkaline phosphatase (P less than .05) and increases in uric acid (P less than .01) and urea nitrogen (P = .07). These results indicate that labetalol may offer some unique advantages over thiazide diuretics that may be particularly important in the treatment of elderly patients with hypertension.

The relationship between blood pressure in the laboratory (both at rest and in response to laboratory tasks) and ambulatory blood pressure at home and at work was evaluated. One hundred nineteen normotensive and unmedicated mild-moderate hypertensive black and white females and males participated in laboratory blood pressure monitoring at rest and during four challenging tasks (structured interview, video game, bicycle exercise, and cold pressor test) as well as ambulatory blood pressure monitoring while at home and at work. Baseline blood pressure taken while subjects were at rest was the strongest predictor of ambulatory systolic blood pressure (r = .64) and diastolic blood pressure (r = .77) at work. Among reactivity tasks the strongest predictors of ambulatory blood pressure in the total population were the structured interview and the video game (both psychological tasks) followed by the cold pressor test. Racial comparisons, however, determined that the cold pressor test predicted diastolic blood pressure significantly better for blacks (r = .73) than for whites (r = .40), suggesting a possible difference in blood pressure regulation.

A single-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to determine the dose-response relationship of guanabenz, administered as single oral doses to patients with mild or moderate hypertension. Twelve hypertensive patients received ascending oral doses of 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, and 32 mg of guanabenz. Dose-response relationships were evaluated for the nine patients who received placebo and all six guanabenz doses. The greatest maximum response (40/24 mm Hg) was seen for the 16 mg guanabenz dose. Since eight of the nine patients had mild hypertension, they may have responded maximally to the lower guanabenz doses, precluding larger decreases with the 24 and 32 mg doses. The mean onset of satisfactory blood pressure reduction decreased from 4 to 2 h and the mean duration increased from 6 to 22 h as the oral dose was increased from 2 to 32 mg. In eight patients, the responses to 16 mg of guanabenz administered sublingually and orally were compared. The sublingual and oral routes produced similar mean (20/13 mm Hg) and maximum (33/24 mm Hg) blood pressure decreases as well as mean onset (2 h) and duration (16.5 h) of satisfactory response. Additional studies involving patients with more severe hypertension are needed to further characterize the dose-response relationship of oral guanabenz and to establish a dose-response relationship for sublingual guanabenz.

The antihypertensive and lipid effects of doxazosin and atenolol were compared in a 10-week, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study. The 129 adults enrolled had mild to moderate hypertension (average supine diastolic blood pressures for doxazosin, atenolol and placebo were 100.6, 101.0 and 99.7 mm Hg, respectively). Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with doxazosin, 1 to 16 mg daily, atenolol, 50 to 100 mg daily or placebo. Among 114 patients included in the efficacy analysis, standing blood pressure (systolic/diastolic) changed by -13/-11 mm Hg with doxazosin (n = 37), -12/-12 mm Hg with atenolol (n = 39) and +1/-1 mm Hg with placebo (n = 38). Mean reductions in blood pressure for doxazosin and atenolol were significantly greater than those for placebo (p less than 0.01), although no statistically significant differences between the active agents were noted. Serum lipid measurements were evaluable for 116 patients, and the 38 doxazosin-treated patients in this group experienced reductions in total cholesterol, total triglyceride and very low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Both doxazosin and atenolol demonstrated comparable acceptance profiles. Doxazosin is an effective hypotensive agent with beneficial effects on serum lipid levels.

The antihypertensive effect of doxazosin 1-16 mg once-daily was compared with that of atenolol 50-100 mg once-daily, and placebo, utilizing a double-blind parallel group (12 patients each) design. Blood pressure (BP) and pulse rate were determined in out-patients who returned for clinic visits every 2 weeks for 14 weeks. During the first 4 weeks, all patients received single-blind placebo therapy. During the subsequent 10 weeks, patients were randomized to placebo, atenolol or doxazosin treatment. After 2 weeks of doxazosin therapy 16 mg daily, there was a significant decrease from baseline (single-blind placebo period) in supine diastolic BP (P less than 0.01) and standing diastolic BP (P less than 0.001). The decreases in supine and standing diastolic BPs in the doxazosin 16 mg daily group were significantly (P less than 0.01) different from the corresponding BPs of the placebo group. At weeks 12 and 14, heart rates in the doxazosin group were not significantly different from baseline or from those in the placebo group. After 4 and 6 weeks of atenolol 100 mg daily, there was a significant decrease from baseline in both supine (P less than 0.001 and P less than 0.05) and standing (P less than 0.05) diastolic BPs and heart rates (P less than 0.05). However, when the atenolol group was compared with the placebo group, a significant decrease occurred only with supine diastolic BP at week 12 (P less than 0.01) and not at week 14; but significant decreases occurred in supine and standing heart rates at weeks 12 and 14 (P less than 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Twenty-five hypertensive patients participated in a randomized placebo-controlled study. After blood pressures were normalized with propranolol or verapamil alone over a 6-week period, patients were entered into a 4-week double-blind period where they received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) treatment (sulindac or piroxicam) or placebo treatment in addition to their antihypertensive therapy. There was a significant elevation in standing systolic blood pressure (P less than 0.05) with propranolol and sulindac, when compared with propranolol and placebo, but no significant changes were shown with propranolol and piroxicam. Systolic blood pressures on sulindac treatment were significantly lower (P less than 0.05) in both supine and standing positions during treatment of hypertension with verapamil compared with propranolol. Both supine systolic and diastolic blood pressures on piroxicam treatment were significantly lower (P less than 0.05) during treatment of hypertension with verapamil compared with propranolol. We conclude that NSAID transiently block the antihypertensive effect of propranolol, causing blood pressures to increase and side effects to improve. However, NSAID do not cause loss of antihypertensive control with verapamil.

Generalizability theory was used to examine the stability of blood pressure (BP) measurement in normotensives and mild hypertensives. Three to six readings at home or at work provided adequate reliability for the same day in each setting. Under structured laboratory conditions, two to three BP measures taken on each of 2 to 3 days for systolic and diastolic BP provided conservative estimates that were generalizable across days. Finally, generalizations across settings called for five or more measurements taken in at least two settings.