South African hypertension guideline 2011. Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT): Practical Implications Angiotensin-II receptor antagonist combined with calcium channel blocker or diuretic for essential hypertension 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). Comparison of the Effects of Antihypertensive Agents on Central Blood Pressure and Arterial Stiffness in Isolated Systolic Hypertension Efficacy of various antihypertensive agents as evaluated by indices of vascular stiffness in elderly hypertensive patients. Results of combination anti-hypertensive therapy after failure of each of the components. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Anti-hypertensive Agents. Effect of single-drug therapy on reduction of left ventricular mass in mild to moderate hypertension: comparison of six antihypertensive agents. The Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents. Effect of different antihypertensive drug classes on central aortic pressure. A CONTROLLED STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF AEROBIC EXERCISE ON ANTIHYPERTENSIVE DRUG REQUIREMENTS OF ESSENTIAL HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS IN THE GENERAL PRACTICE SETTING Effects of thiazide diuretics on plasma lipids and lipoproteins in mildly hypertensive patients: a double-blind controlled trial. Additional Antihypertensive Effect of Drugs in Hypertensive Subjects Uncontrolled on Diltiazem Monotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Office and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Combination Therapy of Calcium Channel Blocker and Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Reduces Augmentation Index in Hypertensive Patients Combination therapy for hypertension in the elderly: a sub-analysis of the Combination Therapy of Hypertension to Prevent Cardiovascular Events (COPE) Trial Double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover comparison of five classes of antihypertensive drugs The 2001 Canadian recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part two--Therapy. Relationship of Antihypertensive Treatment Regimens and Change in Blood Pressure to Risk for Heart Failure in Hypertensive Patients Randomly Assigned to Doxazosin or Chlorthalidone: Further Analyses from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial
OUTCOMES Extensive data from r and omised controlled trials have shown the benefit of treating hypertension . The target blood pressure ( BP ) for antihypertensive management is systolic < 140 mmHg and diastolic < 90 mmHg with minimal or no drug side-effects ; however , stricter BP control is required for patients with end-organ damage , co-existing risk factors and co-morbidity , e.g. diabetes mellitus . The reduction of BP in the elderly and in those with severe hypertension should be achieved gradually over 1 month . Co-existent risk factors should also be controlled . BENEFITS Benefits of management include reduced risks of stroke , cardiac failure , chronic kidney disease and coronary heart disease . RECOMMENDATIONS The correct BP measurement procedure is described , and evaluation of cardiovascular risk factors and recommendations for antihypertensive therapy are stipulated . The total cardiovascular disease risk profile should be determined for all patients to inform management strategies . Lifestyle modification and patient education are cornerstones in the management of every patient . Major indications , pre caution s and contra-indications to each recommended antihypertensive drug are listed . Combination therapy should be considered ab initio if the BP is ≥ 20/10 mmHg . First-line drug therapy for uncomplicated hypertension includes low-dose thiazide-like diuretics , calcium channel blockers ( CCBs ) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors ( ACE-Is ) ( or ARBs - angiotensin II receptor blockers ) . If the target BP is not obtained , a second antihypertensive should be added from the aforementioned list . If the target BP is still not met , the third remaining antihypertensive agent should be used . In black patients  either thiazide-like diuretics or CCBs can be used initially , because response rates are better than with ACE-Is or β-blockers . In treating resistant hypertension , a central ly acting drug , vasodilator , α-blocker , spironolactone or β-locker should be added . This guideline includes management of specific situations , i.e. hypertensive emergency and urgency , severe hypertension with target organ damage , hypertension in diabetes mellitus , resistant hypertension , fixed drug combinations , new trials in hypertension , and interactions of antihypertensive agents with other drugs . VALIDITY The guideline was developed by the Southern African Hypertension Society The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial ( ALLHAT ) , sponsored by the National Heart , Lung , and Blood Institute ( NHLBI ) , is the largest outcome trial of antihypertensive treatment ever carried out and the only large blood pressure ( BP ) trial to be carried out in a US population in the past decade.1 The rationale for ALLHAT , which was design ed in the early 1990s , was the urgent need to determine which of the several classes of antihypertensive drugs that had been developed and released for clinical use was most effective in preventing coronary heart disease ( CHD ) , defined as fatal CHD and nonfatal myocardial infa rct ion.2 The only r and omized trials that had previously compared representatives of the antihypertensive drug classes , the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents3 and the Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study (TOMHS),4 showed BP reductions with all classes but were not powered to evaluate CHD outcomes . Further , prior outcome trials had shown that the reduction in CHD event rates with antihypertensive treatment was less than expected based on epidemiologic data .5 Adverse effects of study drugs , particularly diuretics , including hypokalemia , hypomagnesemia , hyperuricemia , hyperlipidemia , insulin resistance , and ventricular ectopic activity , had been adduced to account for the disappointing outcomes of earlier trials by off setting the beneficial effects of BP reduction.6,7 To further complicate the picture , benefits beyond BP reduction had been attributed to some antihypertensive drug classes , ie , improved survival and reduced morbidity in persons with heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitors8–10 and improved insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles with α-blocker treatment.11 In contrast , another antihypertensive drug class , the dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers ( CCBs ) , had been associated with unfavorable outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infa rct ion or unstable angina.12 There were no data To achieve the target blood pressure recommended by the latest guidelines , multiple antihypertensive drugs are needed in most patients . In this study , the efficacy of treatment using an angiotensin II receptor antagonist ( ARB ) combined with a calcium channel blocker ( CCB ) or a diuretic was compared from multiple perspectives in patients with hypertension . Twenty-nine patients with essential hypertension , who had failed to achieve their target blood pressure ( < 130/85 mm Hg for patients < 65 years old and < 140/90 mm Hg for those ⩾65 years ) when treated with the ARB olmesartan at 20 mg day−1 , were additionally given 8–16 mg day−1 of the CCB azelnidipine or 1–2 mg day−1 of trichlormethiazide ( a thiazide diuretic ) in a r and omized crossover manner for 4 months each . At the end of each combination therapy period , blood and urine sample s were collected and arterial stiffness was evaluated by measuring the cardio-ankle pulse wave velocity . Compared with monotherapy , the blood pressure was reduced similarly by adding azelnidipine ( −12/−10 mm Hg ) or trichlormethiazide ( −14/−9 mm Hg ) . The heart rate was decreased with the CCB by 4 b.p.m . ( P<0.05 ) , whereas it was unchanged with the thiazide . Serum K , lipids and blood glucose were not significantly changed with either combination , whereas serum uric acid was increased with the thiazide ( P<0.01 ) but was unchanged with azelnidipine  . Plasma levels of renin , angiotensin II and aldosterone were also increased with the thiazide period , whereas high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and oxidized low-density lipoprotein were decreased with azelnidipine . In addition , the cardio-ankle vascular index , a parameter of arterial stiffness , was decreased with the azelnidipine period but was unchanged with the thiazide period ( P<0.01 ) . It is suggested that the combination of olmesartan and azelnidipine has advantages over the combination of olmesartan and a thiazide with respect to avoiding hyperuricemia , sympathetic activation , renin – angiotensin-aldosterone system stimulation , inflammation , oxidative stress , and increased arterial stiffness in patients with moderate hypertension . These properties may provide cardiovascular protection in addition to the hypotensive effect Hypertension is the most common condition seen in primary care and leads to myocardial infa rct ion , stroke , renal failure , and death if not detected early and treated appropriately . Patients want to be assured that blood pressure ( BP ) treatment will reduce their disease burden , while clinicians want guidance on hypertension management using the best scientific evidence . This report takes a rigorous , evidence -based approach to recommend treatment thresholds , goals , and medications in the management of hypertension in adults . Evidence was drawn from r and omized controlled trials , which represent the gold st and ard for determining efficacy and effectiveness . Evidence quality and recommendations were grade d based on their effect on important outcomes . There is strong evidence to support treating hypertensive persons aged 60 years or older to a  BP goal  of less than 150/90 mm Hg and hypertensive persons 30 through 59 years of age to a diastolic goal of less than 90 mm Hg ; however , there is insufficient evidence in hypertensive persons younger than 60 years for a systolic goal , or in those younger than 30 years for a diastolic goal , so the panel recommends a BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg for those groups based on expert opinion . The same thresholds and goals are recommended for hypertensive adults with diabetes or nondiabetic chronic kidney disease ( CKD ) as for the general hypertensive population younger than 60 years . There is moderate evidence to support initiating drug treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor , angiotensin receptor blocker , calcium channel blocker , or thiazide-type diuretic in the nonblack hypertensive population , including those with diabetes . In the black hypertensive population , including those with diabetes , a calcium channel blocker or thiazide-type diuretic is recommended as initial therapy . There is moderate evidence to support initial or add-on antihypertensive therapy with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker in persons with CKD to improve kidney outcomes . Although this guideline provides evidence -based recommendations for the management of high BP and should meet the clinical needs of most patients , these recommendations are not a substitute for clinical judgment , and decisions about care must carefully consider and incorporate the clinical characteristics and circumstances of each individual patient Isolated systolic hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and results primarily from elastic artery stiffening . Although various drug therapies are used to lower peripheral blood pressure ( BP ) in patients with isolated systolic hypertension , the effects of the 4 major classes of antihypertensive agents on central BP , pulse pressure ( PP ) amplification , and arterial stiffness in this condition are not clear . Fifty-nine patients over the age of 60 years with untreated isolated systolic hypertension ( systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg and diastolic BP ≤90 mm Hg ) were r and omly assigned to receive 1 of the following 4 antihypertensive agents : perindopril , atenolol , lercanidipine , or bendrofluazide  . BP was measured using a mercury sphygmomanometer , and augmentation index and carotid-femoral ( aortic ) pulse wave velocity were measured at baseline , after 2 weeks of placebo therapy , and at the end of 10 weeks of active therapy . Peripheral systolic BP and peripheral PP were reduced similarly after treatment with all 4 classes of drug . However , central PP was only reduced significantly by perindopril , lercanidipine , and bendrofluazide , whereas atenolol had no effect . Lercanidipine reduced the augmentation index , whereas atenolol increased it . Aortic pulse wave velocity was not changed by any of the drugs . In summary , despite similar reductions in peripheral systolic and PPs with the 4 classes of drug , changes in central pressure and augmentation index varied . Because central PP and increased wave reflections are considered important risk factors in patients with isolated systolic hypertension , the choice of therapy may be influenced by these findings in the future When observed in elderly hypertensive patients , increased pulse pressure ( PP ) and arterial stiffness are known to be independent risk factors for cardiovascular diseases . Increased systolic blood pressure ( SBP ) leads to left ventricular hypertrophy , while decreased diastolic blood pressure ( DBP ) results in decreased coronary circulation . It is known that increased arterial stiffness is the major cause of increased PP . Thus basic morbid states of cardiac failure or ischemic heart diseases are more likely to develop in elderly hypertensive patients with increased PP and arterial stiffness , and there is need of antihypertensive drugs that decrease these effects in elderly hypertensives . In this study , we compared the effects of an angiotensin-receptor blocker ( ARB : valsartan ) , an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ( ACE-I : temocapril ) , and long-acting Ca antagonists ( L- and N-type Ca channel blocker : cilnidipine ; and L-type Ca channel blocker : nifedipine CR ) on PP and arterial stiffness measured by pulse wave velocity in elderly hypertensive patients for 3 months . The ARB yielded the largest reductions in PP and brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity ( baPWV ) , followed by the ACE-I and L- and N-type Ca channel blocker , while the L-type Ca channel blocker yielded no improvement . The effects on arterial stiffness and PP thus varied among the drug characteristics . Although ARB achieved the largest reduction in baPWV , this decrease was not associated with any reductions in PP , SBP , DBP , or mean blood pressure , as were the baPWV-decreases achieved by the other drugs , suggesting that ARB may further reduce the risk of arteriosclerosis in elderly hypertensive patients by decreasing arterial stiffness in addition to its antihypertensive effect We r and omised ambulatory men with diastolic blood pressure ( BP ) 95 - 109 mmHg without anti-hypertensive medication to single drug treatment with either  hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 - 50 mg/day , atenolol 25 - 100 mg/day , captopril 25 - 100 mg/day , clonidine 0.2 - 0.6 mg/day , diltiazem-SR 120 - 360 mg/day , prazosin 4 - 20 mg/day or placebo in a double-blind prospect i ve trial . The assigned drug was titrated to a goal BP of < 90 mm Hg . Patients not achieving goal BP were rer and omised to an alternative single active drug . Non-responders to the second drug received the first drug in combination with the second . Of the 102 non-responders to both drugs who qualified for the combination , 59 ( 57.8 % ) responded . The combination pairs that included a diuretic achieved diastolic goal BP in 69 % and < 140 mm Hg systolic in 77 % compared with 51 % and 46 % , respectively , for those combinations without a diuretic ( P = 0.067 ; P = 0.002 ) . Six of the eight terminations due to adverse drug reactions were in combinations containing prazosin ; three of these six were hypotensive reactions . We conclude that two single drugs of insufficient efficacy to control BP individually have a high probability of achieving goal BP when combined , especially if the combination contains a diuretic BACKGROUND Antihypertensive drugs may differ in their ability to reduce LV mass . Covariates other than drug selection , such as pretreatment LV mass , body weight , the magnitude of blood pressure reduction , race , and age may modify the response of LV mass to therapy . METHODS AND RESULTS Patients with mild to moderate hypertension ( diastolic blood pressure , 95 to 109 mm Hg ) were r and omly allocated to treatment with atenolol , captopril , clonidine , diltiazem , hydrochlorothiazide , or prazosin in a double-masked trial . Patients achieving the goal diastolic blood pressure of < 90 mm Hg during drug titration entered a 1-year maintenance period . Longitudinal analysis examined changes from baseline echocardiogram in LV mass at 8 weeks and at 1 year , statistically adjusted for pretreatment LV mass , systolic blood pressure , body weight , sodium excretion , physical activity , race , and age . Significant reductions at 1 year in adjusted LV mass were seen for patients in the highest tertile of pretreatment LV mass treated with hydrochlorothiazide ( mean , -42.9 ; 95 % confidence limits , -65.5 , -20.2 g ) , captopril ( mean , -38.7 ; 95 % confidence limits , -61.0 , -16.4 g ) , and atenolol ( mean , -28.1 ; 95 % confidence limits , -50.9 , -5.3 g ) . These treatment effects differed from those of prazosin , diltiazem , or clonidine . CONCLUSIONS Antihypertensive drugs have disparate effects on LV mass independent of the magnitude of blood pressure reduction . Patients with adequate blood pressure control on captopril , hydrochlorothiazide , and atenolol show a reduction of LV mass after 1 year of treatment , whereas patients on diltiazem , clonidine , or prazosin do not Central aortic systolic blood pressure ( BP ) is an important determinant of cardiac workload and cardiac hypertrophy . The relationship of central aortic systolic BP and brachial BP varies depending on the stiffness of blood vessels . It is not certain whether the different drug classes affect the brachial and aortic systolic BP in a similar manner . In a double-blind crossover study , we measured the effects of the four major drug classes compared with placebo on central aortic pressure . Central aortic pressure and various indices were determined using the Sphygmo Cor apparatus . The study was undertaken in patients aged 65 to 85 years with systolic BP > 150 mm Hg at study entry . Results are reported for 32 patients who had satisfactory applanation tonometry in all five periods .  Calcium channel blockers and diuretics caused a greater fall in brachial artery systolic BP than angiotensin-converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitors or beta-blocking drugs . On placebo , central aorta augmentation pressure and index were 23 mm Hg and 33.3 % ; on ACE inhibitors the values were 18 mm Hg and 30 % ; on beta-blockers , 26 mm Hg and 38.5 % ; on calcium channel blockers , 16 mm Hg and 28 % ; and on diuretics , 17 mm Hg and 28.8 % . The augmentation pressure on beta-blocking drugs was greater than on the other three drug classes ( P < .05 ) , and augmentation pressures on ACE inhibitors , calcium channel blockers , and diuretics were less than on placebo ( P < .05 ) . The lowest central aortic pressures were achieved with calcium blocking drugs and diuretics . Therapy based on brachial artery recordings may thus overestimate the effect of beta-blocking drugs on central aortic systolic BP and underestimate the effectiveness of ACE inhibitors and calcium blocking drugs . The clinical importance of this discrepancy needs to be evaluated 1 . To investigate the effect of an exercise training programme on antihypertensive drug requirements , 19 sedentary subjects ( 14 men and five women ) with mild essential hypertension ( systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mmHg but less than 180 mmHg ) , aged 29–55 years , were r and omly assigned to 16 weeks of moderate intensity exercise or light intensity exercise ( control ) , and titrated on antihypertensive drug therapy ( captopril and hydrochlorothiazide ) until  resting systolic blood pressure  ( sitting ) of less than 140 mmHg was achieved A blood lipid-lipoprotein elevating effect of the diuretics hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone in mildly hypertensive men has been established by a cross-over , r and omized controlled trial , confirming previous clinical observations . Compared to baseline , plasma total cholesterol increased 6 % and 8 % and triglycerides 17 % and 15 % under treatment with hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone , respectively . A cholesterol-lowering diet largely prevents this increase . Because these effects may be long-lasting and may cancel part of the potential benefit of blood pressure control in mildly hypertensive patients , with thiazide diuretics attention should be given to prescription of a cholesterol-lowering diet and to periodic monitoring of blood lipid levels . Different antihypertensive agents might be considered in patients with elevated blood lipid levels . Other antihypertensive agents currently in use need to be studied for potential effects on lipid metabolism The purpose of this study was to compare several diltiazem-based antihypertensive drug combinations and assess the usefulness of home blood pressure monitoring in the evaluation of the efficacy of combination pharmacotherapy . Sixteen general practitioners recruited hypertensive subjects uncontrolled on diltiazem monotherapy , who were r and omized to receive eight weeks of add-on therapy with a diuretic ( chlorthalidone ) , a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist ( felodipine ) , an ACE inhibitor ( lisinopril ) , or an angiotensin blocker ( valsartan ) .  Sitting office and home blood pressure was measured using electronic devices A&D 767 . A total of 211 patients were r and omized , and 185 completed the study . Of 52 subjects r and omized to felodipine  , 15 were withdrawn due to ankle edema . The additional antihypertensive effect of the second drug was smaller in 18 subjects with a white coat effect ( p < 0.01 ) . All combinations produced a significant decline in office ( 21.2 ± 14.8 / 7.7 ± 9.7 mmHg ) and home ( 17.1 ± 11.9 / 6.0 ± 7.0 ) blood pressure ( systolic / diastolic , p < 0.001 ) . There were no differences in the efficacy of the four combinations assessed using office or home blood pressure monitoring . These data suggest that diuretics , dihydropyridines , ACE inhibitors , and angiotensin receptor blockers provide significant additional antihypertensive effects in hypertensive patients uncontrolled on diltiazem monotherapy . The diltiazem-dihydropyridine combination is often intolerable because of ankle edema . Home blood pressure monitoring is useful in the assessment of the efficacy of combination pharmacotherapy and also allows for the detection of subjects who do not require treatment intensification Introduction : The optimal combination treatment for hypertension has not been established . We investigated the effect of a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic added to angiotensin II receptor blockers ( ARBs ) on the augmentation index ( AI ) , as a marker of arterial stiffness and wave reflection , in hypertensive patients . Methods : Thirty-seven patients treated with ARBs  were r and omly allocated to either of the 2 groups receiving an ARB plus azelnidipine ( AZ group ) or trichlormethiazide ( TCM group ) . Changes in brachial blood pressure ( BP ) , AI , high-sensitive C-reactive protein ( hsCRP ) , and serum asymmetric dimethylarginine , as an endogenous nitric oxide synthase inhibitor , were determined . Results : Systolic and diastolic blood pressure after 6 months were significantly reduced in both the groups similarly ; however , after adjustment for baseline covariates , the extent of the reduction in AI ( % ) in the AZ group was significantly greater than in the TCM group ( between-group difference was 3.2 ; 95%CI : 0.2–6.3 ; P = 0.03 ) . The reduction of high-sensitive C-reactive protein ( mg/L ) and serum asymmetric dimethylarginine ( & mgr;mol/L ) was significantly greater in the AZ group than in the TCM group ( between-group difference was 0.18 and 0.05 ; 95%CI : −0.01 to 0.36 and −0.01 to 0.11 ; P = 0.04 and 0.02 , respectively ) . Further , when patients were analyzed according to age younger than 60 years or older than 60 years , the reduction in AI in the AZ group aged older than 60 years was significantly greater than in the TCM group . Conclusion : The results suggest that azelnidipine has a more beneficial effect on vascular properties in combination therapy with ARB than trichlormethiazide The Combination Therapy of Hypertension to Prevent Cardiovascular Events ( COPE ) trial demonstrated that the calcium-channel blocker benidipine-based combination therapies with an angiotensin-receptor blocker ( ARB ) , a β-blocker , or a thiazide diuretic ( thiazide ) were similarly effective in preventing cardiovascular events and achieving the target blood pressure ( BP ; < 140/90 mm Hg ) . We further evaluated the efficacy and safety of these combination therapies in older ( ⩾65 years ) and younger ( < 65 years ) hypertensive patients . In this sub- analysis of the COPE trial 3293 patients ( 1533⩾65 years old and 1760 < 65 years old ) were r and omly assigned to receive benidipine-based therapy with an ARB , a β-blocker or a thiazide . In each group , the average BP did not differ among the three treatment groups . The incidence of the primary cardiovascular composite end point in the older group was higher than in the younger group ( 12.7 vs. 8.3 per 1000 person-years , P=0.023 ) . The primary composite cardiovascular end point , achievement ( % ) of target BP , and cardiovascular hard composite end points were similar among the three treatment groups . However , the hazard ratios and 95 % confidence intervals in older patients were 2.74 ( 1.08–6.96 ; β-blocker vs. thiazide , P=0.022 ) for fatal and non-fatal stroke , and 2.47 ( 1.03–5.91 ; β-blocker vs. ARB , P=0.043 ) for new-onset diabetes . Thus , benidipine combined with an ARB , a β-blocker , or a thiazide was similarly effective in preventing cardiovascular events and achieving the target BP in both older and younger hypertensive patients . Further studies will be necessary to evaluate the usefulness of benidipine combined with a β-blocker in terms of the incidence of stroke and new-onset diabetes in older patients Objective Hypertension guidelines recommend initial treatment with a β-blocker or diuretic and adding the other drug where blood pressure is not controlled . We hypothesized that systematic rotation through the major classes of antihypertensive drugs would demonstrate substantial differences in the pattern of an individual patient 's response , and suggest a more rational approach to choosing best treatment . Design Thirty-four young hypertensives ( age 28–55 , median 47 ) rotated in a double-blind , Latin-square , crossover fashion through 6 weeks of treatment each with amlodipine , doxazosin , lisinopril , bisoprolol , bendrofluazide and placebo . Blood pressure was measured at each visit . ‘ Best ’ drug , defined by efficacy and tolerability , was repeated at the end . Results Rotation doubled the number of patients reaching target blood pressure ( systolic < 140 mmHg ) on one drug ( P = 0.03 ) . All five drugs were represented among the ‘ best ’ drugs . In six patients , the blood pressure on ‘ best ’ drug was at least 10 mmHg lower than on any other . Response to the ‘ best ’ drug was highly correlated ( r = 0.79 ) with its previous administration . By contrast , there were only weak correlations between responses to pairs of drugs , except for angiotensin-converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitor ( A ) with β-blocker ( B ) , and calcium blocker ( C ) with diuretic ( D ) – each r = 0.71 , P < 0.005 ) . In these young patients , the majority of patients ( 23/34 ) responded best to a drug suppressing the renin system ( A and B ) . Conclusions Patients vary reproducibly in their response to initial treatment , and switching among drugs can increase the efficacy of monotherapy . The results support an AB/CD scheme for choosing therapy , in which the first drug is taken from one of these pairs , and uncontrolled patients switch to one of the other pair OBJECTIVE To provide up date d , evidence -based recommendations for the therapy of hypertension in adults . OPTIONS For patients with hypertension , a number of antihypertensive agents may control blood pressure . R and omized trials evaluating first-line therapy with thiazides , beta-adrenergic antagonists , angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors , calcium channel blockers , alpha-blockers , central ly acting agents or angiotensin II receptor antagonists were review ed . OUTCOMES The health outcomes that were considered were changes in blood pressure , cardiovascular morbidity , and cardiovascular and /or all-cause mortality rates . Economic outcomes were not considered due to insufficient evidence . EVIDENCE MEDLINE was search ed for the period March 1999 to October 2001 to identify studies not included in the 2000 revision of the Canadian Recommendations for the Management of Hypertension . Reference lists were scanned , experts were polled , and the personal files of the subgroup members and authors were used to identify other published studies . All relevant articles were review ed and appraised , using prespecified levels of evidence , by content experts and method ological experts . VALUES A high value was placed on the avoidance of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality . BENEFITS , HARMS AND COSTS Various antihypertensive agents reduce the blood pressure of patients with sustained hypertension . In certain setting s , and for specific classes of drugs , blood-pressure lowering has been associated with reduced cardiovascular morbidity and /or mortality . RECOMMENDATIONS The present document contains detailed recommendations pertaining to treatment thresholds , target blood pressures , and choice of agents in various setting s in patients with hypertension . The main changes from the 2000 Recommendations are the addition of a section on the treatment of hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus , the amalgamation of the previous sections on treatment of hypertension in the young and old into one section , increased emphasis on the role of combination therapies over repeated trials of single agents and expansion of the section on the treatment of hypertension after stroke . Implicit in the recommendations for therapy is the principle that treatment for an individual patient should take into consideration global cardiovascular risk , the presence and /or absence of target organ damage , and comorbidities . VALIDATION All recommendations were grade d according to strength of the evidence and voted on by the Canadian Hypertension Recommendations Working Group . Individuals with potential conflicts of interest relative to any specific recommendation were excluded from voting on that recommendation . Only those recommendations achieving high levels of consensus are reported here . These guidelines will continue to be up date d annually Context Previously published results of this r and omized , double-blind trial showed that hypertensive patients treated with doxazosin rather than chlorthalidone more often developed heart failure . Did differences in blood pressure control or treatment with other drugs explain these findings ? Contribution This analysis shows that the slightly worse blood pressure control achieved with doxazosin did not explain higher risks for heart failure . Risks with doxazosin versus chlorthalidone were highest among patients who received monotherapy ( relative risk , 3.10 ) and lowest among patients who received stepped care with additional drugs ( relative risk , 1.42 ) . Implication s Increased risks for heart failure with doxazosin versus chlorthalidone are attenuated but not eliminated when additional antihypertensive drugs are used . The Editors The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial ( ALLHAT ) , a r and omized , double-blind , multicenter clinical trial including 42 418 participants at 623 clinical sites , is design ed to determine whether treatment begun with a calcium-channel blocker ( amlodipine ) , an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ( lisinopril ) , or an -adrenergic blocker ( doxazosin ) compared to treatment with a diuretic ( chlorthalidone ) reduces the incidence of fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infa rct ion in high-risk patients with hypertension ( 1 ) . Secondary end points are all-cause mortality , stroke , and other cardiovascular events . A lipid-lowering trial in a subset of 10 356 participants is design ed to determine whether decreasing cholesterol levels with a hydroxymethyl glutamyl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor ( pravastatin ) compared with usual care reduces all-cause mortality in older , moderately hypercholesterolemic patients . In January 2000 , the doxazosin arm of the trial was discontinued ( 2 ) because major cardiovascular disease ( relative risk , 1.25 [ 95 % CI , 1.17 to 1.33 ] ; P < 0.001 ) , especially heart failure ( relative risk , 2.04 [ 95 % CI , 1.79 to 2.32 ] ; P < 0.001 ) , was significantly increased compared with the chlorthalidone arm . Equally important , a low probability existed that doxazosin would show benefit over chlorthalidone for the primary end point by the scheduled study end , given the lack of difference ( relative risk , 1.02 [ 95 % CI , 0.90 to 1.17 ] ; P > 0.2 ] at that time . These intention-to-treat analyses compared patients assigned to chlorthalidone with patients assigned to doxazosin . In this article , we analyze how treatment changes may have affected the comparison of doxazosin with chlorthalidone in terms of heart failure . Our major objectives are to ascertain to what extent the relative risk with doxazosin versus chlorthalidone depends on 1 ) whether the assigned drugs were used as monotherapy or in combination with other agents and 2 ) the difference in decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure . Methods Study Design The rationale and design of ALLHAT are described in detail elsewhere ( 1 ) . In brief , eligible participants were men and women 55 years of age or older who had systolic or diastolic hypertension ( 140/90 mm Hg or hypertension controlled with medication ) plus at least one additional risk factor for coronary heart disease events . The risk factors included previous ( > 6 months ) myocardial infa rct ion or stroke , left ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiography or echocardiography , history of type 2 diabetes , current cigarette smoking , and a low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level . Persons with a history of hospitalized or treated symptomatic heart failure or a known ejection fraction less than 0.35 were excluded . Unless the drug regimen required tapering for safety , participants who had been taking antihypertensive medications continued to do so until the day of r and omization , at which point they stopped taking all previous medications . On the day after r and omization , treatment with the study drug was initiated . Enrollment occurred from February 1994 through January 1998 . The original reported number of 42 448 participants and 625 sites changed because 30 patients with poor documentation of informed consent were excluded ( 2 ) . Participants were assigned by a computer-generated r and omization schedule in a ratio of 1.7:1 to receive chlorthalidone or doxazosin . R and omization was stratified by center and blocked over time to maintain the ratio . All participants gave written informed consent , and all centers obtained institutional review board approval . Ascertainment of Outcomes At each clinic visit , occurrence of study end points was assessed by the clinical investigator . A hospital discharge summary was required for each hospitalized study outcome , and a death certificate was required for each death . ALLHAT defined symptomatic heart failure as clear-cut signs or symptoms of left or right ventricular dysfunction that can not be attributed to other causes . A patient had to have at least one symptom ( paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea , dyspnea at rest , New York Heart Association class III dyspnea or other symptoms [ on less than ordinary exertion ] , or orthopnea ) and one sign ( rales , ankle edema , tachycardia , cardiomegaly or characteristic pulmonary pattern on chest radiography , S3 gallop , or jugular venous distention ) ( 3 ) . Symptoms and signs were determined by the clinic investigator through patient history , chart review , or consultation with the treating physician , but such data were not collected central ly . A one-time sample of 24 hospitalized or fatal heart failure events was review ed in a blinded manner by the ALLHAT Endpoints Subcommittee ; 20 of 24 ( 83 % ) were deemed to have complete data for a definitive diagnosis . Of the 20 cases , the agreement rate between the subcommittee and the clinic investigators was 90 % ( 18 of 20 ) and similar in both treatment groups . Details on the validity of diagnosis of heart failure will be provided in a future report . Measurement and Treatment of Blood Pressure The ALLHAT protocol specified a stepped-care treatment program for hypertension . Trained observers using st and ardized techniques measured blood pressures during the trial ( 1 , 2 ) . All blood pressures were calculated as the average of two measurements obtained with a 30-second interval between them . The blood pressure goal in all four study arms was less than 140/90 mm Hg . This level was to be achieved with the lowest possible dose of blinded first-line drug , with addition of second- and third-line open-label therapy as needed after reaching the maximal dose of first-line drug . Chlorthalidone and doxazosin were to be taken once daily in the morning . By design , doses were selected to achieve equivalent blood pressure control in the treatment groups . The first , second , and third dosage levels were 12.5 mg/d , 12.5 mg/d ( sham titration ) , and 25 mg/d , respectively , for chlorthalidone and 2 mg/d , 4 mg/d , and 8 mg/d for doxazosin . Double-blinded 1-mg and 12.5-mg doses of doxazosin and chlorthalidone , respectively , were used for the first week to minimize the frequency of postural hypotension associated with doxazosin . The identity of drugs was masked at each dosage level , but dosage level was not . After r and omization , patients were seen for dose titration as needed at 1 and 3 months per the protocol , but they could return more often until target blood pressure was reached . Subsequently , required visits occurred at 3-month intervals during the first year and at 4-month intervals thereafter . Open-label second-step drugs were added as needed and tolerated . These agents were reserpine ( 0.05 to 0.2 mg/d ) , clonidine ( 0.1 to 0.3 mg twice daily ) , and atenolol ( 25 to 100 mg/d ) . The choice of second-step drug was at the discretion of the treating clinician-investigator . The third-step agent was hydralazine ( 25 to 100 mg twice daily ) . Details of these therapies are provided elsewhere ( 1 ) . Investigators could choose to prescribe open-label antihypertensive drugs other than those provided by the study . However , use of the drug classes under study thiazide diuretics , calcium antagonists , angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors , and -adrenergic blockerswas strongly discouraged to avoid dilution of treatment comparisons . When clinical conditions other than uncontrolled hypertension ( for example , angina or heart failure ) were present , drugs from any study class could be used . If a step 1 drug was specifically required for blood pressure control while blinded drug treatment was continued , the step 1 drug could be added as open-label therapy but the dose could not exceed one half the maximum recommended by the Fifth Joint National Committee ( 4 ) . In most such cases , unblinding the patient or the investigator to treatment assignment was not necessary . ( Overall , < 1 % of drug identities were provided to either participant or investigator . ) Any of nine possible open-label drug typesdiuretic , calcium-channel blocker , angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor , -adrenergic blocker , atenolol , reserpine , clonidine , hydralazine , and other antihypertensive drug ( which could include nonatenolol -blockers , although drug name was not logged)could be recorded at each visit . Because diuretics , angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors , and -blockers are beneficial in preventing or treating heart failure , we call these antihypertensive heart failure drugs . Data on  antihypertensive drug use before study enrollment were collected , but not by drug class . Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed for use of additional drugs according to participants ' r and omized treatment assignments and regardless of continuation of blinded study treatment . The outcomes all heart failure ( treated outside hospital , hospitalized , or fatal ) and hospitalized or fatal heart failure were examined by treatment group for the entire cohort . The time to event for the previously published as-r and omized analyses was the interval from r and omization to first diagnosis of heart failure for patients who had an outcome , or from r and omization to
First-line low-dose thiazides reduce all morbidity and mortality outcomes .
First-line ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers may be similarly effective but the evidence is less robust .
First-line high-dose thiazides and first-line beta-blockers are inferior to first-line low-dose thiazides
BACKGROUND Sustained elevated blood pressure , unresponsive to lifestyle measures , leads to a critically important clinical question : What class of drug to use first-line ?
This review answers that question .
OBJECTIVES PRIMARY OBJECTIVE To quantify the benefits and harms of the major first-line anti-hypertensive drug classes : thiazides , beta-blockers , calcium channel blockers , angiotensin converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitors , alpha-blockers , and angiotensin II receptor blockers ( ARB ) .