Administration-time-dependent effects of olmesartan on the ambulatory blood pressure of essential hypertension patients. Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil compared with amlodipine for mild-to-moderate hypertension. Distinct time courses of renal protective action of angiotensin receptor antagonists and ACE inhibitors in chronic renal disease. Beneficial effects of adding spironolactone to recommended antihypertensive treatment in diabetic nephropathy: a randomized, double-masked, cross-over study. Efficacy and safety of valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, in hypertension after renal transplantation: a randomized multicenter study. A controlled, prospective study of the effects of atorvastatin on proteinuria and progression of kidney disease. A randomized trial comparing losartan with amlodipine as initial therapy for hypertension in the early post-transplant period. Evaluation of blood pressure response to the combination of enalapril (single dose) and diltiazem ER (four different doses) in systemic hypertension. Lowering blood pressure reduces renal events in type 2 diabetes. The effects of the long-acting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor cilazapril on casual, exercise, and ambulatory blood pressure. Effects of candesartan cilexetil in patients with systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators. Effect of ingesting sour milk fermented using Lactobacillus helveticus bacteria producing tripeptides on blood pressure in subjects with mild hypertension. Tricenter assessment of the efficacy of the ACE inhibitor, moexipril, by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Additive antiproteinuric effect of pentoxifylline in patients with type 2 diabetes under angiotensin II receptor blockade: a short-term, randomized, controlled trial. Efficacy and safety of a once daily graded-release diltiazem formulation in essential hypertension. Combined enalapril and felodipine extended release (ER) for systemic hypertension. Enalapril-Felodipine ER Factorial Study Group. Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK trial. Evaluation of the 24-hour blood pressure effects of eprosartan in patients with systemic hypertension. Impact of Medicaid prior authorization on angiotensin-receptor blockers: can policy promote rational prescribing? Effects of magnesium supplementation in hypertensive patients: assessment by office, home, and ambulatory blood pressures. Effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system triple blockade on non-diabetic renal disease: addition of an aldosterone blocker, spironolactone, to combination treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin II receptor blocker. Exercise and weight loss reduce blood pressure in men and women with mild hypertension: effects on cardiovascular, metabolic, and hemodynamic functioning. Aliskiren, an orally effective renin inhibitor, provides antihypertensive efficacy alone and in combination with valsartan. A comparative trial of labetalol and hydralazine in the acute management of severe hypertension complicating pregnancy. Effect of oral calcium supplementation on blood pressure in patients with previously untreated hypertension: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Dose-related effects of flavanol-rich cocoa on blood pressure. Additive effects of verapamil and enalapril in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. Spironolactone in type 2 diabetic nephropathy: Effects on proteinuria, blood pressure and renal function. Lisinopril for the treatment of hypertension within the first 24 hours of acute ischemic stroke and follow-up. Effects of comprehensive lifestyle modification on blood pressure control: main results of the PREMIER clinical trial. Effects of reduced sodium intake on hypertension control in older individuals: results from the Trial of Nonpharmacologic Interventions in the Elderly (TONE). The effect of cilazapril, a new angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, on peak and trough blood pressure measurements in hypertensive patients. Short-term treatment of severe hypertension of pregnancy: prospective comparison of nicardipine and labetalol. Matrix study of irbesartan with hydrochlorothiazide in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Treatment of IgA nephropathy with ACE inhibitors: a randomized and controlled trial. The effects of KT3-671, a new angiotensin II (AT 1) receptor blocker in mild to moderate hypertension. Dose response and safety of telmisartan in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Effects of weight loss and sodium reduction intervention on blood pressure and hypertension incidence in overweight people with high-normal blood pressure. The Trials of Hypertension Prevention, phase II. The Trials of Hypertension Prevention Collaborative Research Group.
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. 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. Although the angiotensin receptor antagonist (ARB) shares the angiotensin-II-blocking activity with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I), pharmacological mechanisms of action of these agents differ. We evaluated the temporal profiles of action of ACE-I and ARB on urinary protein excretion and nitrate/nitrate (NO(x)) excretion in hypertensive (140 and/or 90 mmHg) patients with chronic renal disease (serum creatinine < 265 (range, 44-265) micromol/l or creatinine clearance > 30 (range, 30-121) ml/min). Patients with mild (<1 g/day; range, 0.4-1.0) and moderate proteinuria (>1 g/day; range, 1.1-6.9) were randomly assigned to ACE-I- and ARB-treated groups, and were treated with ACE-I (trandolapril or perindopril) or ARB(losartan or candesartan) for 48 weeks. In all groups, treatment with ACE-I or ARB decreased blood pressure to the same level, but had no effect on creatinine clearance. In patients with mild proteinuria, neither ACE-I nor ARB altered urinary protein excretion. In patients with moderate proteinuria, ACE-I caused 44 +/- 6% reduction in proteinuria (from 2.7 +/- 0.5 to 1.5 +/- 0.4 g/day, n = 14) at 12 weeks, and this beneficial effect persisted throughout the protocol (48 weeks, 1.2 +/- 0.2 g/day). In contrast, ARB did not produce a significant decrease in proteinuria at 12 weeks (23 +/- 8%, n = 13), but a 41 +/- 6% reduction in proteinuria was observed at 48 weeks. Similarly, although early (12 weeks) increases in urinary NO(x) excretion were observed with ACE-I (from 257 +/- 70 to 1111 +/- 160 micromol/day) and ARB (from 280 +/- 82 to 723 +/- 86 micromol/day), the ARB-induced increase in NO(x) excretion was smaller than that by ACE-I (P < 0.05). In conclusion, although both ACE-I and ARB reduce blood pressure similarly, the effect of these agents on proteinuria differs in chronic renal disease with moderate proteinuria. Relatively early onset of the proteinuria-reducing effect was observed with ACE-I, which paralleled the increase in urinary NO(x) excretion. Conversely, ARB decreased proteinuria and increased urinary NO(x) excretion gradually. These time course-dependent changes in proteinuria and urinary NO(x) may reflect the pharmacological property of ACE-I and ARB, with regard to the action on bradykinin. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and short-term effect of adding spironolactone to conventional antihypertensive treatment including diuretics and maximally recommended doses of an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) on albuminuria and blood pressure in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.
                Twenty-one type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy were enrolled in a randomized, double-masked, cross-over study. Patients were treated in random order with spironolactone 25 mg once daily and matched placebo for 8 weeks, respectively, in addition to ongoing antihypertensive treatment including diuretics and maximally recommended doses of an ACE inhibitor and/or an ARB. At the end of each treatment period, albuminuria, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were determined.
                During the addition of placebo, values were as follows: albuminuria (geometric mean [range]) 1,566 [655-7,762] mg/24 h, ABP (mean +/- SE) 138 +/- 3/71 +/- 1 mmHg, and GFR (mean +/- SE) 74 +/- 6 ml/min per 1.73 m2. During the addition of spironolactone, albuminuria was reduced by 33% (95% CI 25-41) (P < 0.001), fractional clearance of albumin by 40% (24-53) (P < 0.001), and 24-h ABP by 6 mmHg (2-10) for systolic and 4 mmHg (2-6) for diastolic (P < 0.001 for both). The change in albuminuria did not correlate with the change in systolic 24-h ABP (r = 0.19, P = 0.42) or diastolic 24-h ABP (r = 0.01, P = 0.96). Spironolactone treatment induced an insignificant reversible reduction in GFR of 3 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (-0.3 to 6) (P = 0.08). One patient was excluded from the study due to hyperkalemia. Otherwise treatment was well tolerated.
                Our study suggests that spironolactone safely adds to the reno- and cardiovascular protective benefits of treatment with maximally recommended doses of ACE inhibitor and ARB by reducing albuminuria and blood pressure in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy. The prevalence of posttransplant hypertension is high, and it appears to be a major risk factor for graft and patient survival. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of valsartan, an angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), in the treatment of posttransplant hypertension.
                A multinational, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed on the treatment of hypertension (systolic blood pressure [BP] >/= 140 and/or diastolic BP >/= 90 mm Hg) in adult cyclosporin-treated renal transplant recipients randomized to receive either valsartan (80 mg once daily) or a matching placebo for 8 weeks. After the first 4 weeks, furosemide 20 mg twice daily was added on a open basis if systolic BP remained >/= 130 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP remained >/= 85 mm Hg.
                One hundred fifteen (valsartan = 57, placebo = 58) uncontrolled hypertensive patients despite monotherapy for hypertension, other than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or ARB, were randomized. In the valsartan group, significant decreases were seen in systolic BP (from 153 +/- 11 to 140.9 +/- 18.35 mm Hg at 4 weeks, and 136.5 +/- 15 mm Hg at 8 weeks) and diastolic BP (from 93 +/- 9 to 85.2 +/- 11.28 mm Hg at 4 weeks, and 83.8 +/- 9.2 mm Hg at 8 weeks). There was no significant change in the placebo group. In the valsartan group, a statistically but not clinically significant reduction was observed in the mean hemoglobin concentration (12.9 +/- 1.6 g/dL versus 13.8 +/- 1.6 g/dL at 4 weeks, P < .01; and 12.3 +/- 1.6 versus 13.8 +/- 1.7 at 8 weeks; P < .001) as well as a significant increase in serum potassium (4.4 +/- 0.5 mmol/L versus 4.1 +/- 0.4 mmol/L at 4 weeks, P < .01) vs placebo.
                Valsartan is effective in the treatment of posttransplant hypertension and is well tolerated. Chronic kidney diseases, particularly if presenting with significant proteinuria, are commonly associated with substantial alteration of serum lipid levels. Experimental evidence suggests that lipid abnormalities may contribute to the progression of kidney disease. However, studies in humans on the subject are scarce.
                In a prospective, controlled open-label study, the authors have evaluated the effects of one-year treatment with atorvastatin, a 3-hydroxy-3-methyglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor, versus no treatment on proteinuria and progression of kidney disease in 56 patients with chronic kidney disease. Before randomization, all patients had already been treated for one year with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin AT1 receptor antagonists (ARBs) and other antihypertensive drugs.
                By the end of one-year treatment, urine protein excretion decreased from 2.2 +/- 0.1 to 1.2 +/- 1.0 g every 24 hours (P < 0.01) in patients treated with atorvastatin in addition to ACE inhibitor and ARBs. By contrast, urinary protein excretion decreased only from 2.0 +/- 0.1 to 1.8 +/- 0.1 g every 24 hours (P value not significant) in patients who did not receive atorvastatin in addition to ACE inhibitor or ARBs. During this time, creatinine clearance decreased only slightly and not significantly (from 51 +/- 1.8 to 49.8 +/- 1.7) in patients treated with atorvastatin. By contrast, during the same period of observation, creatinine clearance decreased from 50 +/- 1.9 to 44.2 +/- 1.6 mL/min (P < 0.01) in patients who did not receive atorvastatin.
                This study has shown that treatment with atorvastatin in addition to a regimen with ACE inhibitors or ARBs may reduce proteinuria and the rate of progression of kidney disease in patients with chronic kidney disease, proteinuria, and hypercholesterolemia. The benefits appear to occur in addition to those of treatment with ACE inhibitor and ARBs.
                Copyright 2003 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the early post-transplant period remains controversial. Angiotensin II-receptor blockers (ARB) have many benefits to the patient with chronic kidney disease and these benefits may also apply to the renal transplant recipient (RTR). Additionally, there are theoretical benefits of ARB use in RTR. This study was designed to investigate the safety of early ARB use after renal transplantation.
                RTR with serum creatinine levels <3.0 mg/dl were randomized to receive either ARB (n = 29) or calcium-channel blocker (CCB; n = 27) as initial therapy for post-transplant hypertension. Differences in potassium, creatinine and haemoglobin concentrations were compared at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months after transplantation.
                Withdrawal from the assigned treatment was high: 12 in the ARB group (due to hyperkalaemia in six) and 17 in the CCB group (due to intractable oedema in seven and post-transplant erythrocytosis requiring an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in seven). There were no differences in blood pressure, haemoglobin or creatinine concentration at any time-points. Mean potassium concentrations were only slightly higher in the ARB vs CCB group (range: 4.2-4.3 vs 3.7-3.8 mEq/l, respectively, but clinically significant) and the number of patients with potassium values >6.0 mEq/l was higher in ARB (n = 7) vs CCB (n = 1).
                These data suggest that hyperkalaemia is the major complication that occurs with the use of ARB in the immediate post-transplant period. ARB use does not affect renal function or complicate the post-transplant management of RTR. Other than reducing the incidence of post-transplant erythrocytosis, ARB use does not cause an excess incidence of anaemia. Strategies to reduce the risk of hyperkalaemia may allow increased use of ARB immediately after kidney transplantation. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium antagonists are 2 classes of antihypertensive agents frequently used either as monotherapy or in combination. A 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in essential hypertensive patients (diastolic blood pressures [BP] when seated, 95-115 mm Hg) to evaluate the efficacy, dose response, and safety profiles of enalapril combined with a new once-daily formulation of diltiazem. BP and heart rate were measured at 5 (peak) and 24 (trough) hours after dose to assess the efficacy and pharmacodynamic profile of the combination given once daily. There were 336 patients randomly assigned to either enalapril 5 mg plus 1 of 4 dose levels of diltiazem ER (60, 120, 180, or 240 mg), enalapril 5 mg alone, or placebo. Each combination dose level produced statistically significant reductions (p <0.05) in trough diastolic BP when seated, compared with placebo (-6.8, -8.3, -10.1, and -10.3 mm Hg for the diltiazem ER doses of 60, 120, 180, and 240 mg, respectively). The 3 highest combination dose levels resulted in statistically significant (p <0.05) decreases in trough diastolic BP when seated, compared with placebo. There was a significant (p <0.001) linear dose-response relation. A trough-to-peak ratio > or = 0.5 was shown for the 3 highest combination doses. Drug-related adverse events were seen in 8.9% to 19% of the combination patients, 14.3% of the enalapril patients, and 8.6% of the placebo patients. The frequency and type of adverse events were those currently noted with each drug studied when used as monotherapy. BP is an important determinant of kidney disease among patients with diabetes. The recommended thresholds to initiate treatment to lower BP are 130/80 and 125/75 mmHg for people with diabetes and nephropathy, respectively. We sought to determine the effects of lowering BP below these currently recommended thresholds on renal outcomes among 11,140 patients who had type 2 diabetes and participated in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: preterAx and diamicroN-MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) study. Patients were randomly assigned to fixed combination perindopril-indapamide or placebo, regardless of their BP at entry. During a mean follow-up of 4.3 yr, active treatment reduced the risk for renal events by 21% (P < 0.0001), which was driven by reduced risks for developing microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria (both P < 0.003). Effects of active treatment were consistent across subgroups defined by baseline systolic or diastolic BP. Lower systolic BP levels during follow-up, even to <110 mmHg, was associated with progressively lower rates of renal events. In conclusion, BP-lowering treatment with perindopril-indapamide administered routinely to individuals with type 2 diabetes provides important renoprotection, even among those with initial BP <120/70 mmHg. We could not identify a BP threshold below which renal benefit is lost. We assessed blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) responses in a double-blind, randomized study comparing cilazapril, a long-acting, nonsulfhydryl-group converting enzyme inhibitor, with placebo in 18 patients with mild to moderate (sitting diastolic BP, 95 to 114 mm Hg) essential hypertension. The BP and HR parameters were evaluated at rest (casual, 24 hours after administration), during treadmill exercise testing (Bruce protocol), and with 24-hour noninvasive ambulatory BP monitoring. These assessments were made after a 4-week drug washout period and after 8 to 12 weeks of therapy. After 8 weeks of therapy with cilazapril (mean dose 3.6 +/- 0.9 mg/day), casual BP decreased 19/11 mm Hg (p less than 0.01), whereas placebo lowered BP by 4/5 mm Hg (difference not significant) compared with the baseline period. The casual HR was modestly (7 beats/min) but significantly (p less than 0.05) lowered by cilazapril monotherapy. Exercise BP was reduced by cilazapril (reduction at peak HR, 23/11 +/- 10/5 mm Hg; p less than 0.05), and exercise HR was unchanged. Compared with baseline, the duration of exercise was improved with cilazapril but not with placebo (1.0 minute vs -0.2 minute; p less than 0.05). Twenty-four-hour mean, awake, and sleep BPs were reduced with cilazapril with the most impressive reduction occurring during the awake period (19/12 mm Hg; p less than 0.01). These data demonstrate that cilazapril lowers casual, exercise, and ambulatory BP with a modest but significant improvement in exercise time. Thus cilazapril may be particularly effective in the physically active hypertensive patient. The objectives of this double-blind, multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled study were to evaluate the dose-related efficacy, tolerability, and safety of candesartan cilexetil, a potent, AT1 selective, long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker, in 365 adult patients with systemic hypertension and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 95 to 114 mm Hg. Patients received either placebo or candesartan cilexetil 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32 mg once daily for 8 weeks. All doses of candesartan cilexetil reduced trough (24 hours after treatment) sitting diastolic and systolic BP significantly compared with placebo (p < 0.005). A significant (p < or = 0.0001) dose response was evident, with greater decreases in BP at higher doses. Mean changes in BP were -10.7/-7.8 mm Hg and -12.6/-10.2 mm Hg in the 16- and 32-mg groups, respectively, versus -0.3/-2.6 mm Hg in the placebo group. The 16- and 32-mg doses were consistently significantly superior to placebo in antihypertensive effect with regard to all BP measurements, including peak (6 hours after treatment), trough, sitting, and standing measurements of diastolic and systolic BP. Responder rates (trough sitting diastolic BP < 90 or > or = 10 mm Hg BP decrease) were 54% and 64% for the 16- and 32-mg groups, respectively. Tolerability and safety profiles were similar to placebo at all doses. In conclusion, candesartan cilexetil administered once daily effectively reduces BP in a dose-related manner while maintaining safety and tolerability; doses of 16 and 32 mg are most effective for treatment of hypertension. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) is important in the regulation of blood pressure (BP). Two tripeptides that inhibit ACE, isoleucyl-prolyl-proline (Ile-Pro-Pro) and valyl-prolyl-proline (Val-Pro-Pro), have been isolated from certain sour milks. The aim of the study reported was to evaluate the effect on BP in subjects with mild hypertension of a new sour milk containing tripeptides. The initial number of subjects was 60 (36 men, 24 women). Among the criteria for inclusion in the study were systolic BP (SBP) between 140 and 180 mmHg and/or diastolic BP (DPB) between 90 and 110 mmHg, without antihypertensive drug therapy. There were two study periods with a washout period between. All subjects were given 1.5 dl per day of a placebo (regular sour milk) or of the active product, a milk that had been fermented with Lactobacillus helveticus bacteria and contained 2.4-2.7 mg of Ile-Pro-Pro and 2.4-2.7 mg of Val-Pro-Pro per 1.5 dl. In the first phase, SBP fell 16 mmHg from baseline in the active group, 2 mmHg more than in the placebo group (P=0.0668) and no difference in DBP (P=0.92). There was a statistically significant downward trend both in SBP and DBP (P=0.0001). During the second phase, SBP fell 11 mmHg in the active group (P=0.008). The reduction in SBP was significantly larger in active than placebo group (P=0.012). In the crossover analysis combining both phases, SBP fell on average 2.6+/-15.9 mmHg more on the active product compared with the placebo product, but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.3111). The difference in DBP, 1.0+/-8.3 mmHg between the two test products was not significant either (P=0.4431). In conclusion, the ingestion of sour milk fermented by L. helveticus bacteria and that containing ACE inhibitory tripeptides seems to lower BP modestly. To assess the efficacy and time-dependent effects of once-daily moexipril, a nonsulfhydryl ester prodrug of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, moexiprilat, we conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 51 hypertensive patients using both clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) recordings. Patients were included in the trial based on a minimum of 40% of the daytime diastolic BPs of 90 mm Hg or more during a placebo baseline phase; and the primary endpoint was change in 24-hour ambulatory diastolic BP. Patients were randomized to receive placebo, 7.5 mg of moexipril, or 15 mg of moexipril once daily. Clinic and ambulatory BPs were taken on the first day and after eight weeks of double-blind therapy. After the 7.5-mg dose, there were no significant changes in the acute or prolonged clinic BPs compared with placebo. Compared with adjusted mean changes for placebo, the 15-mg moexipril dose lowered clinic systolic BP, but not diastolic BP. In contrast, acute (1 day) reductions in 24-hour diastolic BPs were -2/-3 mm Hg, -6/-4 mm Hg, and -14/-9 mm Hg on placebo, 7.5 mg of moexipril, and 15 mg of moexipril, respectively (P < .01 for the 15-mg dose). Similarly, after long-term dosing for 8 weeks, reductions in 24-hour diastolic BPs were 1/-2 mm Hg, -6/-4 mm Hg, and -12/-9 mm Hg for the respective treatment groups (P < .01 for the 15-mg dose).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Despite the beneficial effects of blockade of the renin-angiotensin system in diabetic nephropathy (DN), albuminuria and progression of renal disease are not completely halted by these agents. Therefore, it is necessary to explore potential antiproteinuric and renoprotective effects of innovative therapeutic approaches. This study tested the hypothesis that the combination of pentoxifylline (PTF) with angiotensin II receptor blockers in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes produces an additive antiproteinuric effect. Sixty-one patients with DN and residual albuminuria despite treatment with the recommended doses of ARB for >1 yr were randomly assigned to receive the addition of 1200 mg of PTF daily (n = 30) or to a control group (n = 31). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, and correlation analysis showed a significant association between urinary albumin excretion (UAE) and urinary TNF-alpha (R = 0.53, P < 0.001). After 4 mo, albuminuria showed a significant decrease in patients who received PTF, from 900 mg/24 h (466 to 1542 mg/d) to 791 mg/24 h (309 to 1400 mg/d; P < 0.001), whereas no significant changes were observed in the control group: 920 mg/24 h (450 to 1489 mg/d) at baseline, and 900 mg/24 h (428 to 1800 mg/d) at the end of the study. The mean percentage variation of UAE in the treatment and control groups was -16.7 and 5.5%, respectively (between-group comparison, P < 0.001). This additive antiproteinuric effect was not dependent on changes in BP or metabolic control. However, both serum and urinary levels of TNF-alpha also decreased in patients who received PTF, from 6.4 pg/ml (2.1 to 9.7) and 16 pg/mg (8 to 29) at baseline to 4.6 pg/ml (0.4 to 9) and 14.2 pg/mg (3 to 26) at the end of the study, respectively (P < 0.01), without significant variations in control patients. Moreover, regression analysis at the end of the study showed a correlation between the change in UAE and the change in urinary TNF-alpha in patients who were treated with PTF (R = 0.49, P < 0.001). In conclusion, administration of PTF to patients who have type 2 diabetes and are under long-term treatment with an ARB produces a significant additive antiproteinuric effect associated with a reduction of urinary TNF-alpha excretion. 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. This multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of factorial design evaluated the safety and efficacy of combination treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, enalapril, and the vascular selective calcium antagonist felodipine extended release (ER) in patients with essential hypertension. After a 4-week, single-blind placebo baseline period, 707 patients with sitting diastolic blood pressures (BPs) in the range of 95 to 115 mm Hg received placebo, enalapril (5 or 20 mg), felodipine ER (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), or their combinations for an 8-week double-blind treatment period. All doses of enalapril and felodipine ER had a statistically significant (p < 0.05) additive effect in reducing both systolic and diastolic BP. The trough to peak ratios for the combinations ranged from 0.63 (enalapril 5 mg-felodipine ER 2.5 mg) to 0.79 (enalapril 20 mg-felodipine ER 10 mg) and were consistent with effective BP control with 1 dose/day. Patients aged > or = 65 years demonstrated a greater reduction in diastolic BP. Combinations of enalapril-felodipine ER were associated with less drug-induced peripheral edema (4.1%) compared to felodipine ER monotherapy (10.8%). There were no serious drug-related adverse effects observed during the study. In this trial, the combination of enalapril and felodipine ER effectively lowered BP and was generally well tolerated with an excellent safety profile when used in the treatment of 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. Eprosartan is a new nonphenyl angiotensin II receptor blocker, which has been approved for the treatment of hypertension. Although the drug has a relatively short plasma half-life of 5 to 9 h, clinical studies have suggested that its antihypertensive effect persists for 24 h.
                We assessed both the changes in 24-h and trough blood pressure (BP) (last 4 h of the ambulatory BP while the patient was awake) of eprosartan at doses of 600 and 1,200 mg once daily in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ambulatory BP was monitored at placebo baseline and after 8 weeks of double-blind therapy.
                Two hundred patients randomized in the study with 177 patients completing the trial. The 24-h change in BP from baseline was 0.2/0.1 +/- 1.4/1.0 mm Hg, -7.9/ -5.4 +/- 1.0 mm Hg (P < .0001), and -7.4/-5.0 +/- 0.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) in the placebo, 600-mg eprosartan, and 1,200-mg eprosartan groups, respectively. Changes in trough ambulatory BP showed significant reductions of -6.3/-4.1 +/- 1.6/1.1 mm Hg and -7.7/-5.5 +/- 1.5/1.0 mm Hg for 600 mg of eprosartan and 1,200 mg of eprosartan, respectively.
                These data demonstrate that eprosartan at doses of 600 or 1200 mg significantly reduced BP throughout an entire 24-h dosing period. There were no differences between the 600- and 1,200-mg dose; thus, 600 mg once daily should be the only dose used in the treatment of hypertension with eprosartan. Prescription drug cost containment is a key health policy priority. State Medicaid programs have implemented policies requiring prior authorization before paying for angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), a costly class of blood pressure medications. We examined the impact of these policies on drug use. We found that policies using a stepped-therapy approach reduced ARB use by 1.6 percent when first implemented and decreased the subsequent trend in ARB use by 1.3 percent per quarter; alternative approaches were unsuccessful. These findings have important implications for the development of rational drug reimbursement policy under Medicare Part D and other health insurance plans. An increase in magnesium intake has been suggested to lower blood pressure (BP). However, the results of clinical studies are inconsistent. We studied the effects of magnesium supplementation on office, home, and ambulatory BPs in patients with essential hypertension. Sixty untreated or treated patients (34 men and 26 women, aged 33 to 74 years) with office BP >140/90 mm Hg were assigned to an 8-week magnesium supplementation period or an 8-week control period in a randomized crossover design. The subjects were given 20 mmol/d magnesium in the form of magnesium oxide during the intervention period. In the control period, office, home, and average 24-hour BPs (mean+/-SE) were 148.6+/-1.6/90.0+/-0.9, 136.4+/-1.3/86.8+/-0.9, and 133.7+/-1.3/81.0+/-0.8 mmHg, respectively. All of these BPs were significantly lower in the magnesium supplementation period than in the control period, although the differences were small (office, 3.7+/-1.3/1.7+/-0.7 mmHg; home, 2.0+/-0.8/1.4+/-0.6 mmHg; 24-hour, 2.5+/-1.0/1.4+/-0.6 mm Hg). Serum concentration and urinary excretion of magnesium increased significantly with magnesium supplementation. Changes in 24-hour systolic and diastolic BPs were correlated negatively with baseline BP or changes in serum magnesium concentration. These results indicate that magnesium supplementation lowers BP in hypertensive subjects and this effect is greater in subjects with higher BP. Our study supports the usefulness of increasing magnesium intake as a lifestyle modification in the management of hypertension, although its antihypertensive effect may be small. Although dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) with the combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) and angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) is generally well-established as a treatment for nephropathy, this treatment is not fully effective in some patients. Based on the recent evidence implicating aldosterone in renal disease progression, this study was conducted to examine the efficacy of blockade with three different mechanisms by adding an aldosterone blocker in patients who do not respond adequately to the dual blockade. A 1-year randomized, open-label, multicenter, prospective controlled study was conducted, in which 32 non-diabetic nephropathy patients with proteinuria exceeding 0.5 g/day were enrolled after more than 12 weeks of ACE-I (5 mg enalapril) and ARB (50 mg losartan) combination treatment. These patients were allocated into two groups of 16 patients each: a triple blockade group in which 25 mg of spironolactone daily was added to the ACE-I and ARB combination treatment, and a control group in which 1 mg of trichlormethiazide or 20 mg of furosemide was added to the combination treatment instead of spironolactone depending upon the creatinine level. After 1 year of treatment, the urinary protein level decreased by 58% (p<0.05) with the triple blockade but was unchanged in the controls. Furthermore, urinary type IV collagen level decreased by 40% (p<0.05) with the triple blockade but was unchanged in the controls. The decreases in urinary protein and urinary type IV collagen were not accompanied by a decrease in blood pressure. Mean serum creatinine, potassium and blood pressure did not change significantly by either treatment. In conclusion, triple blockade of the RAAS was effective for the treatment of proteinuria in patients with non-diabetic nephropathy whose increased urinary protein had not responded sufficiently to a dual blockade. Lifestyle modifications have been recommended as the initial treatment strategy for lowering high blood pressure (BP). However, evidence for the efficacy of exercise and weight loss in the management of high BP remains controversial.
                One hundred thirty-three sedentary, overweight men and women with unmedicated high normal BP or stage 1 to 2 hypertension were randomly assigned to aerobic exercise only; a behavioral weight management program, including exercise; or a waiting list control group. Before and following treatment, systolic and diastolic BPs were measured in the clinic, during daily life, and during exercise and mental stress testing. Hemodynamic measures and metabolic functioning also were assessed.
                Although participants in both active treatment groups exhibited significant reductions in BP relative to controls, those in the weight management group generally had larger reductions. Weight management was associated with a 7-mm Hg systolic and a 5-mm Hg diastolic clinic BP reduction, compared with a 4-mm Hg systolic and diastolic BP reduction associated with aerobic exercise; the BP for controls did not change. Participants in both treatment groups also displayed reduced peripheral resistance and increased cardiac output compared with controls, with the greatest reductions in peripheral resistance in those in the weight management group. Weight management participants also exhibited significantly lower fasting and postprandial glucose and insulin levels than participants in the other groups.
                Although exercise alone was effective in reducing BP, the addition of a behavioral weight loss program enhanced this effect. Aerobic exercise combined with weight loss is recommended for the management of elevated BP in sedentary, overweight individuals. 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. Sixty peripartum patients with diastolic blood pressures (BP) 110 mmHg or higher were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive repeated intravenous injections of either labetalol (20-80 mg) or hydralazine (5 mg) until the diastolic BP was below 100 mmHg. There were four treatment failures in the labetalol group (N = 40) and none in the hydralazine group (N = 20). Hydralazine lowered mean arterial pressure (MAP) more than did labetalol (33.3 +/- 13.2 versus 25.5 +/- 11.2 mmHg; mean +/- SD), but labetalol had a more rapid effect. There was considerable interpatient variability in the dose of labetalol required to control BP, which could not be predicted by any clinical characteristic before therapy. The duration of action also varied in the labetalol group, with the shortest duration occurring in those patients who required the highest dosage for BP control. No significant fetal or neonatal problems ascribable to drug treatment were noted in the 13 instances in which labetalol was given before delivery. However, fetal distress occurred in two of the six cases involving antenatal hydralazine. We conclude that labetalol appears to be a safe and effective alternative to hydralazine for treating hypertension in the peripartum period, but serious rare side effects have not yet been quantified. It has been claimed that calcium lowers BP. The present randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study is the first to investigate the effect on BP of a high oral dose of calcium given for a long period to patients with previously untreated hypertension. Elemental calcium (2 g) was administered for 12 weeks interchanging with a period of 12 weeks of placebo. Twenty patients completed the protocol. There was no significant difference in change of BP during the period of additional calcium intake when compared with placebo (P = 0.33). The risk of not detecting a real BP-lowering effect of calcium of at least 3 mmHg was < 5%. No evidence for the existence of a subgroup of 'responders' was found. It is concluded that a high daily dose of calcium supplementation given for 12 weeks does not decrease BP in previously untreated patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Consumption of flavanol-containing cocoa products has been shown to lower blood pressure (BP), but the minimum dose required to reduce BP is not known. This study aimed to examine the effect of three different doses of cocoa flavanols (CF) on 24-h mean arterial BP. Twenty four hour ambulatory BP (24-ABP) monitoring was performed in 32 men and 20 postmenopausal women with untreated mild hypertension (seated clinic BP >130/85 and <160/100 mm Hg). Participants were randomized and instructed to consume daily a reconstituted cocoa beverage containing 33, 372, 712 or 1052 mg day(-1) of CF for 6 weeks in a double-blind, parallel comparison. Seated clinic BP and 24-h ABP were measured at 0, 3 and 6 weeks. Seated clinic BP did not change during the study period. There were significant reductions in 24-h systolic (5.3+/-5.1 mm Hg; P=0.001), diastolic (3+/-3.2 mm Hg; P=0.002) and mean arterial BP (3.8+/-3.2 mm Hg; P=0.0004) at the 1052 mg day(-1) CF only. No reduction in BP was seen at any other dose. No evidence of dose-response was seen in this experiment. The highest dose of 1052 mg CF per day was found to significantly lower BP. These results support previous evidence for CF to lower BP, however more research is needed to establish the most effective dose and food matrix. A factorial design was applied in this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the calcium-channel blocker verapamil and the ACE inhibitor enalapril to assess the hypotensive effects of the combination compared with monotherapy, to evaluate safety, and to determine the effects on quality of life (QOL) of both drugs, alone and in combination. The study consisted of a 3 x 2 factorial design wherein 186 men and women with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) of between 95 mm Hg and 114 mm Hg, after a 4-week placebo washout, were randomized to one of six treatment groups for 4 weeks of active treatment. Monotherapy with both 240 mg verapamil and 10 mg enalapril reduced systolic and diastolic BP to a similar extent and significantly more than placebo. The 240 mg verapamil + 10 mg enalapril combination was additive for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure; 120 mg verapamil + 10 mg enalapril was additive for systolic BP only. The total number of adverse events reported was similar for all six treatment groups. QOL scores were unchanged from baseline and not different between treatment groups. The combination of 240 mg verapamil and 10 mg enalapril was significantly more effective at reducing BP than either drug alone; this additivity of effect was not linked to a higher rate of adverse experiences or to a deterioration in QOL. Thus, combination therapy at lower doses may offer an alternative treatment option to higher dose monotherapy. To study the effects of addition of spironolactone to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition or angiotensin II (AngII) receptor antagonism on proteinuria, blood pressure (BP) and renal function in overt type 2 diabetic nephropathy.
                A placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trial in patients from two outpatient clinics with a follow-up of 1 year.
                Type 2 diabetic patients with macroalbuminuria, despite long-term use of an ACE inhibitor or AngII receptor blocker were allocated to spironolactone, 25-50 mg once daily (n = 29) or placebo (n = 30). Urinary albumin to creatinine ratio, BP and biochemical parameters were measured at regular intervals.
                Five patients of the spironolactone and one of the placebo group developed hyperkalemia and had to be excluded. Compared to other patients their baseline serum creatinine [161 (123-248) versus 88 (72-170) micromol/l] and potassium concentrations (4.7 +/- 0.3 versus 4.2 +/- 0.2 mmol/l) were elevated (P < 0.001). Albuminuria decreased by 40.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 23.4-57.8%] and BP by 7 mmHg (2-12 mmHg)/3 mmHg (1-6 mmHg) with spironolactone, but did not change with placebo. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) during the 1-year follow-up declined on average by 12.9 ml/min per 1.73 m (9.5-16.5 ml/min per 1.73 m) in the spironolactone and by 4.9 ml/min per 1.73 m (0.8-8.9 ml/min per 1.73 m) in the placebo group (P = 0.004). This decline was progressive in the placebo but leveled off in the spironolactone group. In the spironolactone group changes in albuminuria and GFR were correlated (r = 0.48, P = 0.007).
                Addition of spironolactone to an ACE inhibitor or AngII receptor blocker is associated with a marked and sustained antiproteinuric effect, which in part relates to the more pronounced reduction in GFR. Hypertension immediately after acute ischemic stroke is associated with impaired morbidity and mortality, although there are few data on antihypertensive use immediately after ictus. This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study explored the hemodynamic effect and safety of oral lisinopril initiated within 24 h after an ictus.
                Forty hypertensive (systolic blood pressure [BP] >/=140 or diastolic BP >/=90 mm Hg) acute ischemic stroke patients (14 lacunar, 13 partial anterior, 7 total anterior, 6 posterior circulation infarct) were randomized to 5 mg of oral lisinopril (n = 18) or matching placebo (n = 22). Dose was increased to 10 mg (or 2 x placebo) on day 7 if casual systolic BP was >/=140 mm Hg and continued to day 14. After the initial dose, automated BP levels were monitored for 16 h. The BP levels and stroke outcome measures were assessed at day 14, and all patients were followed to day 90.
                At h 4 after the first dose, systolic/diastolic BP change was -20 +/- 21/-6 +/- 10 mm Hg (mean +/- SE) in the lisinopril group and 1 +/- 11/0 +/- 8 mmHg in the placebo group (group differences: systolic BP, P < .05; diastolic BP, P = .07). With a daily dosing regime, systolic BP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), diastolic BP, and pulse pressure (PP) were significantly lower in the lisinopril group compared to the placebo group at day 14 (P < .01). Neurologic and functional measures were similar between groups at follow-up.
                Lisinopril, even at small dosages, is well tolerated and an effective hypotensive agent after acute ischemic stroke, gradually reducing BP by 4 h after oral first-dose administration. Oral lisinopril is now being studied in a larger outcome-based trial in acute hypertensive stroke patients. Weight loss, sodium reduction, increased physical activity, and limited alcohol intake are established recommendations that reduce blood pressure (BP). The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet also lowers BP. To date, no trial has evaluated the effects of simultaneously implementing these lifestyle recommendations.
                To determine the effect on BP of 2 multicomponent, behavioral interventions.
                Randomized trial with enrollment at 4 clinical centers (January 2000-June 2001) among 810 adults (mean [SD] age, 50 [8.9] years; 62% women; 34% African American) with above-optimal BP, including stage 1 hypertension (120-159 mm Hg systolic and 80-95 mm Hg diastolic), and who were not taking antihypertensive medications.
                Participants were randomized to one of 3 intervention groups: (1) "established," a behavioral intervention that implemented established recommendations (n = 268); (2) "established plus DASH,"which also implemented the DASH diet (n = 269); and (3) an "advice only" comparison group (n = 273).
                Blood pressure measurement and hypertension status at 6 months.
                Both behavioral interventions significantly reduced weight, improved fitness, and lowered sodium intake. The established plus DASH intervention also increased fruit, vegetable, and dairy intake. Across the groups, gradients in BP and hypertensive status were evident. After subtracting change in advice only, the mean net reduction in systolic BP was 3.7 mm Hg (P<.001) in the established group and 4.3 mm Hg (P<.001) in the established plus DASH group; the systolic BP difference between the established and established plus DASH groups was 0.6 mm Hg (P =.43). Compared with the baseline hypertension prevalence of 38%, the prevalence at 6 months was 26% in the advice only group, 17% in the established group (P =.01 compared with the advice only group), and 12% in the established plus DASH group (P<.001 compared with the advice only group; P =.12 compared with the established group). The prevalence of optimal BP (<120 mm Hg systolic and <80 mm Hg diastolic) was 19% in the advice only group, 30% in the established group (P =.005 compared with the advice only group), and 35% in the established plus DASH group (P<.001 compared with the advice only group; P =.24 compared with the established group).
                Individuals with above-optimal BP, including stage 1 hypertension, can make multiple lifestyle changes that lower BP and reduce their cardiovascular disease risk. Few trials have evaluated the effects of reduced sodium intake in older individuals, and no trial has examined the effects in relevant subgroups such as African Americans.
                The effects of sodium reduction on blood pressure (BP) and hypertension control were evaluated in 681 patients with hypertension, aged 60 to 80 years, randomly assigned to a reduced sodium intervention or control group. Participants (47% women, 23% African Americans) had systolic BP less than 145 mm Hg and diastolic BP less than 85 mm Hg while taking 1 antihypertensive medication. Three months after the start of intervention, medication was withdrawn. The primary end point was occurrence of an average systolic BP of 150 mm Hg or more, an average diastolic BP of 90 mm Hg or more, the resumption of medication, or a cardiovascular event during follow-up (mean, 27.8 months).
                Compared with control, mean urinary sodium excretion was 40 mmol/d less in the reduced sodium intervention group (P<.001); significant reductions in sodium excretion occurred in subgroups defined by sex, race, age, and obesity. Prior to medication withdrawal, mean reductions in systolic and diastolic BPs from the reduced sodium intervention, net of control, were 4.3 mm Hg (P<.001) and 2.0 mm Hg (P =.001). During follow-up, an end point occurred in 59% of reduced sodium and 73% of control group participants (relative hazard ratio = 0.68, P<.001). In African Americans, the corresponding relative hazard ratio was 0.56 (P =.005); results were similar in other subgroups. In dose-response analyses, end points were progressively less frequent with greater sodium reduction (P for trend =.002).
                A reduced sodium intake is a broadly effective, nonpharmacologic therapy that can lower BP and control hypertension in older individuals. Cilazapril (CLZ) is a new, long-acting nonsulfhydril converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I). Its effect on peak and trough sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) was studied in a total of 85 patients with uncomplicated, essential hypertension at three centers. After 4 weeks of a single-blind placebo (PLA) run-in period, patients whose SDBP was between 100 and 115 mm Hg, were randomized into active treatment with either PLA (n = 27), CLZ 2.5 mg (n = 29), or CLZ 5 mg (n = 29) once daily in a double-blind fashion for another 8 weeks. At the end of the PLA run-in and after 4 and 8 weeks active therapy, an hourly blood pressure (BP) profile during 1-10 and 21-24 h postdose was performed. The drop in SDBP at the end of the active treatment period at peak and trough was statistically and clinically significant for both CLZ doses in comparison with the PLA group. The peak/trough ratio after subtraction of the PLA effect was 62% for CLZ 2.5 mg and 59% for CLZ 5 mg. These results indicate that the dose regimen of CLZ 2.5-5 mg once daily is adequate and effective for 24 h. To assess the efficacy and safety of nicardipine in comparison to labetalol in the initial management of severe hypertension in pregnancy. DESIGN. Randomized prospective study.
                The obstetric ward of the teaching hospital of Monastir Tunisia.
                Sixty consecutive pregnant women admitted beyond the 24th week of pregnancy with severe hypertension.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenously for 1 h either labetalol ( n=30) or nicardipine ( n=30). Treatment was titrated to achieve a 20% lowering of blood pressure (BP).
                Maternal BP and heart rate were measured at inclusion and repeatedly during the first hour following the drugs administration. Fetal heart rate was recorded throughout the study period. The main outcome endpoints were the success rate and the length of time needed to achieve the therapeutic goal. The rate of maternal and fetal adverse events and dose adjustments were also analyzed.
                Labetalol and nicardipine achieved the 20% lowering in BP in the same proportion (63% and 70% success rates, respectively). Overall nicardipine caused a significantly greater decrease in systolic and diastolic BP. No patient had any episode of hypotension. The length of time to achieve the BP goal was also similar (12 vs. 11 min, respectively). Both drugs were well tolerated except for a moderate tachycardia observed with the use of nicardipine.
                Nicardipine and labetalol are effective and safe in the initial treatment of severe hypertension of pregnancy. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and antihypertensive dose-response effects of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After a 4- to 5-week single-blind placebo lead-in period, 683 patients with seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) between 95 and 110 mm Hg were randomized to receive once-daily dosing with one of 16 different double-blind, fixed combinations of irbesartan (0, 37.5, 100, and 300 mg irbesartan) and HCTZ (0, 6.25, 12.5, and 25 mg HCTZ) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in trough SeDBP after 8 weeks of therapy. Data were analyzed by response surface modeling. At Week 8, mean changes from baseline in trough SeDBP (mm Hg) ranged from -3.5 for placebo, -7.1 to -10.2 for the irbesartan monotherapy groups, -5.1 to -8.3 for the HCTZ monotherapy groups, and -8.1 to -15.0 for the combination groups. Irbesartan plus HCTZ produced additive reductions in both SeDBP and seated systolic BP, with at least one combination producing greater BP reduction than either drug alone (P < .001). All treatments were well tolerated; there were no treatment-related serious adverse events. Irbesartan tended to ameliorate the dose-related biochemical abnormalities associated with HCTZ alone. In conclusion, the combination of HCTZ in doses up to 25 mg with irbesartan, in doses up to 300 mg, is safe and produces dose-dependent reductions in BP. Some retrospective studies have suggested a beneficial influence of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors on the progression of IgA nephropathy (IgAN), but prospective and controlled studies demonstrating this effect are lacking. Forty-four patients with biopsy-proven IgAN, proteinuria > or = 0.5 g/d, and serum creatinine (SCr) < or = 1.5 mg/dl were randomly assigned either to receive enalapril (n = 23) or to a control group (n = 21) in whom BP was controlled with antihypertensives other than ACE inhibitors. Primary outcome was renal survival estimated by a 50% increase in baseline SCr. Secondary outcomes were the presence of a SCr > 1.5 mg/dl at the last visit and the evolution of proteinuria. Baseline clinical findings were similar at baseline between enalapril-treated and control group, and there were no differences in BP control during follow-up. Mean follow-up was 78 +/- 37 mo in the enalapril group and 74 +/- 36 mo in the control group. Three patients (13%) in the enalapril group and 12 (57%) in the control group reached the primary end point (P < 0.05). Kaplan-Meier renal survival was significantly better in enalapril group than in control group: 100% versus 70% after 4 yr and 92% versus 55% after 7 yr (P < 0.05). Three patients in the enalapril group (13%) and 11 (52%) in the control group showed SCr > 1.5 mg/dl at the last visit (P < 0.05). Proteinuria significantly decreased in the enalapril group, whereas it tended to increase in the control group (P < 0.001 between groups). In conclusion, ACE inhibitors significantly improve renal survival in proteinuric IgAN with normal or moderately reduced renal function. To compare the antihypertensive effect, and tolerability and safety of once daily doses of KT3-671 with that of placebo in patients with mild to moderate uncomplicated essential hypertension.
                A randomised, multicentre, double blind, parallel-group comparison of KT3-671 with placebo. Hypertensive patients [Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM), mean daytime DBP > 90 mmHg, Office sitting mean DBP 95-114 after a 7-28 day washout period] entered a 2-week, single blind, run-in phase. Patients eligible for the double-blind phase were randomised to receive KT3-671 40 mg, 80 mg, 160 mg or placebo once daily over 4 weeks. The primary end-point was trough mean sitting office DBP. The study had 90% power to detect a 5 mmHg change between treatments and placebo at the 5% level of significance. The secondary end-points were 24 hour, daytime and night time mean ABPM.
                Office DBP was significantly lower with KT3-671 40 mg but not the other 2 dosage groups (-3.2; 95% CL -6.1 : -0.3 P < 0.03). Office SBP was significantly reduced with all dosage groups (40 mg -5.9, 95% CL -11 : -0.9; 80 mg -4.9, 95% CL -9.9 : 0.1 and 160 mg -5.7, 95% CL -10.8 : -0.7 P < 0.05). All doses of KT3-671 reduced systolic and diastolic ABPM. The number of patients with treatment related adverse events were comparable to placebo (38.8% KT3-671 vs 32.8% placebo). There was some evidence of a dose-response relationship with fall in nocturnal ABPM.
                Oral KT3-671 was well tolerated. KT3-671 reduced office systolic BP at all doses and diastolic BP at some of the doses. Due to greater precision and power, the falls in mean ambulatory systolic and diastolic pressure were all significantly lower than placebo. This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study evaluated the dose-response relationship of telmisartan in 207 patients with mild to moderate hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 100 to 114 mmHg). After a 28-day placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to 28 days of once-daily, double-blind, double-dummy treatment with telmisartan 40, 80, or 120 mg; enalapril 20 mg; or placebo. Blood pressure (BP) was manually recorded for 12 hours after the first dose and after 24 hours at baseline (Day 0), Day 1, and Day 28 of double-blind treatment. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were assessed from telmisartan plasma concentrations. All doses of telmisartan and enalapril significantly reduced BP compared with placebo (p < or = 0.01). Mean +/- SE reductions in supine DBP after 28 days of treatment ranged between 7.9 +/- 1.3 mmHg and 9.8 +/- 1.3 mmHg in the telmisartan groups, 9.6 +/- 1.3 mmHg with enalapril, and 1.5 +/- 1.3 mmHg with placebo. Mean +/- SE reductions in supine systolic blood pressure (SBP) were between 10.0 +/- 2.2 mmHg and 15.5 +/- 2.2 mmHg with telmisartan versus 10.2 +/- 2.1 mmHg with enalapril; placebo increased supine SBP by 3.5 +/- 2.1 mmHg. The BP reductions after 4 weeks of treatment with telmisartan were no different from those achieved with enalapril. No significant linear trend in BP reduction was evident among telmisartan doses. Reductions in SBP and DBP were maintained over the 24-hour period at Day 28. Treatment did not affect supine heart rate. Trough/peak DBP ratios were > or = 85% for all telmisartan doses versus 65% for enalapril. High interpatient variability in telmisartan plasma concentrations was observed. For example, mean +/- SD values for Cmax were 159 +/- 104 ng/mL for telmisartan 40 mg, 693 +/- 606 ng/mL for telmisartan 80 mg, and 1635 +/- 1406 ng/mL for telmisartan 120 mg. Plasma concentration-effect analyses indicated that the antihypertensive effects of telmisartan 40, 80, and 120 mg are at the plateau region of the concentration-response curve. All active treatments were well tolerated, with tolerability profiles similar to placebo, and telmisartan did not produce any clinically relevant first-dose effects. These data confirm the antihypertensive efficacy and placebo-like tolerability of telmisartan. To provide a firmer basis for preventing high blood pressure (BP), we tested interventions to promote weight loss, dietary sodium reduction, and their combination for lowering diastolic BP, systolic BP, and the incidence of hypertension during a 3- to 4-year period.
                We conducted a randomized, 2 x 2 factorial, clinical trial, with BP levels measured by blinded observers. Nine academic medical centers recruited 2382 men and women (age range, 30-54 years) not taking antihypertensive drugs, with a diastolic BP of 83 to 89 mm Hg, a systolic BP lower than 140 mm Hg, and a body mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) representing 110% to 165% of desirable body weight. Counseling aimed at helping participants achieve their desirable weight or a 4.5-kg or more weight reduction (in the weight loss and combined groups) and/or sodium intake of 80 mmol/d (in the sodium reduction and combined groups) was provided.
                From baseline, participants' weight decreased by 4.3 to 4.5 kg at 6 months and by approximately 2 kg at 36 months in the weight loss and combined groups compared with weight changes in the usual care group (all groups, P < .001). Sodium excretion decreased 50 and 40 mmol/d at 6 and 36 months, respectively, in the sodium reduction group and about 15 mmol/d less at each time point in the combined group compared with the usual care group (all groups, P < .01). Compared with the usual care group, BP decreased 3.7/2.7 mm Hg in the weight loss group, 2.9/1.6 mm Hg in the sodium reduction group, and 4.0/2.8 mm Hg in the combined group at 6 months (all groups, P < .001). At 36 months, BP decreases remained greater in the active intervention groups than in the usual care group (weight loss group, 1.3/0.9 mm Hg; sodium reduction group, 1.2/0.7 mm Hg; combined group, 1.1/0.6 mm Hg). Differences were statistically significant for systolic and diastolic BP in the weight loss group and for systolic BP in the sodium reduction group. Through 48 months, the incidence of hypertension (BP > or = 140 mm Hg systolic or > or = 90 mm Hg diastolic or the use of antihypertensive drugs) was significantly less in each active intervention group than the usual care group (average relative risks, 0.78-0.82).
                In overweight adults with high-normal BP, weight loss and reduction in sodium intake, individually and in combination, were effective in lowering systolic and diastolic BP, especially in the short-term (6 months). Although the effects on average BP declined over time, reductions in hypertension incidence were achieved.
The evidence from this review suggests that there are no clinically meaningful BP lowering differences between available ARBs. The BP lowering effect of ARBs is modest and similar to ACE inhibitors as a class; the magnitude of average trough BP lowering for ARBs at maximum recommended doses and above is -8/-5 mmHg.  Furthermore, 60 to 70% of this trough BP lowering effect occurs with recommended starting doses. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with ARBs because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials.