Patterns of compliance with once versus twice daily antihypertensive drug therapy in primary care: a randomized clinical trial using electronic monitoring. Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil compared with amlodipine for mild-to-moderate hypertension. Relaxation and stress management in the treatment of essential hypertension. Impact of the treatment of isolated systolic hypertension on behavioral variables. Results from the systolic hypertension in the elderly program. Aliskiren, an orally effective renin inhibitor, provides antihypertensive efficacy alone and in combination with valsartan. Comparative antihypertensive effects of losartan 50 mg and losartan 50 mg titrated to 100 mg in patients with essential hypertension. Morning versus evening amlodipine treatment: effect on circadian blood pressure profile in essential hypertensive patients. Controlling hypertension and hypotension immediately post-stroke (CHHIPS): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind pilot trial. Resistant arterial hypertension and hyperlipidemia: atorvastatin, not vitamin C, for blood pressure control. Moxonidine and hydrochlorothiazide in combination: a synergistic antihypertensive effect. Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination therapy with losartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in Japanese patients with essential hypertension.
To evaluate patterns of compliance with once versus twice daily administration of antihypertensive therapy (primary-outcome measure) and relevance of partial compliance for blood pressure control (secondary outcome measure).
                Multicentre, nonblinded, parallel group randomized design.
                Nonacademic primary care practices across Canada.
                Patients with mild essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95 to 110 mmHg) of either sex (40% women), age 18 to 80 years (average 55 years). One hundred and ninety-eight patients were randomized to active treatment; 14 patients discontinued the study because of side effects.
                After a four-week placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to amlodipine 5 mg once-a-day or diltiazem slow release formulation (SR) 90 mg twice daily. Doses were increased to 10 mg and 180 mg to achieve sitting diastolic blood pressure of 90 mmHg or less.
                During 20 weeks on active treatment, compliance was assessed by pill counts and medication event monitoring system (MEMS), assessing percentage of prescribed doses taken, percentage days correct doses taken, percentage prescribed doses taken on time and blood pressure control as determined by office blood pressure measurement.
                The percentage prescribed doses taken (by either pill count of MEMS) showed a high degree of compliance, similar for the two treatments. However, other parameters of compliance were significantly better with once versus twice daily therapy. Partial compliance (less than 80% by pill count) led to less blood pressure control with the short acting diltiazem, but did not affect blood pressure control for the long acting amlodipine. Side effects profiles did not differ between the two treatments.
                Within the constraints of a clinical trial, hypertensive patients in primary care show a high degree of overall compliance with once or twice daily pill-taking, but patterns of pill-taking are more erratic with twice versus once daily medication, particularly in men. The results suggest that the negative consequences of partial compliance for blood pressure control can be offset by choosing agents with a duration of action well beyond the dosing interval. The antihypertensive efficacy of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil has been shown to compare favourably with that of other antihypertensive agents. This randomized, double-blind study compared the antihypertensive efficacy of the starting dose of olmesartan medoxomil with that of the calcium channel blocker amlodipine besylate (amlodipine) in subjects with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Following a 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 440 subjects aged >/=18 years were randomized to the starting dose of olmesartan medoxomil (20 mg/day), amlodipine (5 mg/day), or placebo for 8 weeks. Subjects were evaluated by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and by seated cuff blood pressure (BP) measurements at trough. The primary end point was the change from baseline in mean 24-h diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by ABPM at Week 8. Secondary end points included change from baseline in mean 24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 8 weeks, change from baseline in mean seated trough cuff DBP and SBP measurements, and response and control rates for DBP <90 and <85 mmHg. Control rates for SBP <140 and <130 mmHg were also calculated. Olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine produced significantly greater reductions in ambulatory and seated DBP and SBP compared with placebo. Mean reductions in ambulatory and seated BP were similar between the two active agents; however, in the olmesartan medoxomil group, significantly more patients achieved the SBP goal of <130 mmHg and the DBP goal of <85 mmHg. Both drugs were well tolerated at the recommended starting dose. Although amlodipine was associated with a higher incidence of oedema, this did not reach statistical significance. Olmesartan medoxomil is an effective antihypertensive agent, with BP-lowering efficacy at the starting dose similar to that of amlodipine, and is associated with more patients achieving the rigorous BP goals of SBP <130 mmHg and DBP <85 mmHg. Thirty-two male and female hypertensives, 34 to 65 yr of age, systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 200 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between 90 and 109 mmHg, were randomly allocated to receive either relaxation and stress management (experimental condition) or mild physical exercise (control condition). Half the participants were taking antihypertensive drugs, which were constant for six months prior to the study and controlled during the study. Outcome measures included various measures of blood pressure in the clinic and at home, cardiovascular responsiveness, moods and 24-hr urinary adrenaline and noradrenaline. The study schedule consisted of 3-months baseline, 10 weeks treatment and 3-months follow-up. Relaxation was superior to the control procedure in reducing blood pressure as assessed by nurses blind to the participants' treatment at post-treatment for DBP and at follow-up for DBP and SBP. Little information has been published on the impact of antihypertensive medications on quality of life in older persons. Particular concern has existed that lowering systolic blood pressure in older persons might have adverse consequences on cognition, mood, or leisure activities.
                A multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted over an average of 5 years' followup involving 16 academic clinical trial clinics. Participants consisted of 4736 persons (1.06%) selected from 447,921 screenees aged 60 years and older. Systolic blood pressure at baseline ranged from 160 to 219 mm Hg, while diastolic blood pressure was less than 90 mm Hg. Participants were randomized to active antihypertensive drug therapy or matching placebo. Active treatment consisted of 12.5 to 25 mg of chlorthalidone for step 1, while step 2 consisted of 25 to 50 mg of atenolol. If atenolol was contraindicated, 0.05 to 0.10 mg of reserpine could be used for the second-step drug. The impact of drug treatment on measures of cognitive, emotional, and physical function and leisure activities was assessed.
                Our analyses demonstrate that active treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program cohort had no measured negative effects and, for some measures, a slight positive effect on cognitive, physical, and leisure function. The positive findings in favor of the treatment group were small. There was no effect on measures related to emotional state. Measures of cognitive and emotional function were stable in both groups for the duration of the study. Both treatment groups showed a modest trend toward deterioration of some measures of physical and leisure function over the study period.
                The overall study cohort exhibited decline over time in activities of daily living, particularly the more strenuous ones, and some decline in certain leisure activities. However, mood, cognitive function, basic self-care, and moderate leisure activity were remarkably stable for both the active and the placebo groups throughout the entire study. Results of this study support the inference that medical treatment of isolated systolic hypertension does not cause deterioration in measures of cognition, emotional state, physical function, or leisure activities. By blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) at its rate-limiting step, renin inhibition may provide improved RAAS suppression. We investigated the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of the oral direct renin inhibitor aliskiren, alone or in combination with the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan.
                In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial, 1123 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension underwent a 3 to 4 week single-blind placebo run-in and were then randomized in a modified factorial study design to receive once-daily, double-blind oral treatment with placebo, aliskiren monotherapy (75, 150, or 300 mg), valsartan monotherapy (80, 160, or 320 mg), aliskiren and valsartan in combination, or valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (160/12.5 mg). The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in mean sitting diastolic BP (DBP) at endpoint.
                Once-daily oral treatment with aliskiren 300 mg significantly (P < .0001) lowered mean sitting DBP and systolic BP (SBP) compared with placebo; aliskiren monotherapy demonstrated a safety and tolerability profile comparable to placebo. Changes in DBP and SBP were fitted to a first-order dose-response surface (lack-of-fit test, P = .65), which showed that aliskiren and valsartan alone and in combination produced dose-related reductions in DBP and SBP. Coadministration of aliskiren and valsartan produced a greater antihypertensive effect than either drug alone, comparable in magnitude to the effect of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide, with similar tolerability to the component monotherapies and to placebo.
                Aliskiren monotherapy provides antihypertensive efficacy and placebo-like tolerability in patients with hypertension. Aliskiren and valsartan in combination may provide additive BP-lowering effects with maintained tolerability. The antihypertensive activity of losartan potassium (losartan, Cozaar), an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, was evaluated in a parallel 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in hypertensive patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After a 4-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, which included monitoring of baseline variables, 366 patients with a group mean sitting diastolic blood pressure of 101 +/- 5 (s.d.) mmHg were assigned randomly to one of three treatment groups: placebo, losartan 50 mg, or losartan 50 mg with the option to titrate to 100 mg after the first 6 weeks if the target sitting diastolic blood pressure (< 90 mmHg) was not reached. To assess the potential blood pressure response associated with the act of titration, patients in the placebo and losartan 50 mg treatment groups with a sitting diastolic blood pressure of > or = 90 mmHg at week 6 were mock titrated (changed to a new tablet containing the same study medication and dose). Sitting diastolic blood pressure was also evaluated at the end of the trial during a 1-week off-drug period to assess for rebound hypertension. At week 6, patients in the active-drug-treatment arms experienced significantly greater peak (6 h post-dose) and trough (24 h post-dose) reduction in systolic and diastolic sitting blood pressures compared with placebo (p < or = 0.01). Based on trough blood pressures at week 12, active drug (both arms) was more effective than placebo in lowering sitting diastolic blood pressure, with a very small additional benefit associated with increasing the dose of losartan to 100 mg in patients who did not reach the target blood pressure after the first 6 weeks on losartan 50 mg. There was no evidence of rebound hypertension during 1 week after withdrawal of losartan. The correlation between baseline plasma renin activity and reduction in peak and trough blood pressure at week 12, although statistically significant, was generally poor in the active treatment groups. In this trial, losartan was efficacious and well tolerated, and was similar to placebo with regard to adverse-experience profile. Adverse experiences that could reasonably be related to excessive lowering of blood pressure were not common and there was no evidence of rebound hypertension. 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. Raised blood pressure is common after acute stroke and is associated with an adverse prognosis. We sought to assess the feasibility, safety, and effects of two regimens for lowering blood pressure in patients who have had a stroke.
                Patients who had cerebral infarction or cerebral haemorrhage and were hypertensive (systolic blood pressure [SBP] >160 mm Hg) were randomly assigned by secure internet central randomisation to receive oral labetalol, lisinopril, or placebo if they were non-dysphagic, or intravenous labetalol, sublingual lisinopril, or placebo if they had dysphagia, within 36 h of symptom onset in this double-blind pilot trial. The doses were titrated up if target blood pressure was not reached. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the National Research Register, number N0484128008.
                179 patients (mean age 74 [SD 11] years; SBP 181 [SD 16] mm Hg; diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 95 [SD 13] mm Hg; median National Institutes of Health stroke scale [NIHSS] score 9 [IQR 5-16] points) were randomly assigned to receive labetolol (n=58), lisinopril (n=58), or placebo (n=63) between January, 2005, and December, 2007. The primary outcome--death or dependency at 2 weeks--occurred in 61% (69) of the active and 59% (35) of the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 1.03, 95% CI 0.80-1.33; p=0.82). There was no evidence of early neurological deterioration with active treatment (RR 1.22, 0.33-4.54; p=0.76) despite the significantly greater fall in SBP within the first 24 h in this group compared with placebo (21 [17-25] mm Hg vs 11 [5-17] mm Hg; p=0.004). No increase in serious adverse events was reported with active treatment (RR 0.91, 0.69-1.12; p=0.50) but 3-month mortality was halved (9.7%vs 20.3%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.40, 95% CI 0.2-1.0; p=0.05).
                Labetalol and lisinopril are effective antihypertensive drugs in acute stroke that do not increase serious adverse events. Early lowering of blood pressure with lisinopril and labetalol after acute stroke seems to be a promising approach to reduce mortality and potential disability. However, in view of the small sample size, care must be taken when these results are interpreted and further evaluation in larger trials is needed. 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. This study was designed as a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, prospectively randomized study comparing, after a 4-week placebo run-in phase, moxonidine 0.4 mg once daily (o.d.), hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg o.d., and the combination of the two with placebo. A total of 160 patients were analyzed in an intent-to-treat analysis. Moxonidine 0.4 mg o.d. was effective in significantly lowering blood pressure in this group of mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients in comparison with placebo. The efficacy and the side-effect profile of moxonidine were comparable to those of the first-line antihypertensive agent hydrochlorothiazide. The combination of moxonidine and hydrochlorothiazide in the same dosage as a monotherapy improves efficacy significantly without additive effects on the safety profile. Response rate after monotherapies was calculated with 70.3 and 70.0%, respectively, after combination treatment in 87.8% of all patients in the treatment group. The trial gives support to a recommended dosage regimen of moxonidine 0.4 mg o.d. This profile of moxonidine is highly comparable to a standard first-line antihypertensive drug such as hydrochlorothiazide, without sacrificing tolerance and safety for increased efficacy, in combination with hydrochlorothiazide. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of 8-week treatment with one of three fixed-dose combinations-losartan 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg, losartan 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 6.25 mg, or losartan 25 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 6.25 mg-in comparison with those of hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg alone, losartan 50 mg alone, or placebo in Japanese patients with essential hypertension. Significant reductions in sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were seen in all three combination groups compared with the placebo group (each p<0.001). The greatest reductions in DBP and SBP were observed in the losartan 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg group (12.7 and 18.0 mmHg, respectively). The reductions in the losartan 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg group were significantly greater (each p<0.001) than those in the placebo group and each of the monotherapy groups. There were no significant differences in the incidences of clinical and laboratory drug-related adverse events between any of the combination groups and the placebo group. All combination groups showed improved hypokalemia and hyperuricemia compared to the hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg group. These results demonstrated that once-daily, fixed-dose combination therapy with losartan 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg is well tolerated and more efficacious in lowering DBP and SBP than monotherapy in Japanese hypertensive patients.
Reserpine is effective in reducing SBP roughly to the same degree as other first-line antihypertensive drugs. However, we could not make definite conclusions regarding the dose-response pattern because of the small number of included trials. More RCTs are needed to assess the effects of reserpine on blood pressure and to determine the dose-related safety profile before the role of this drug in the treatment of primary hypertension can be established.