Beta-blockers versus diuretics in hypertensive men: main results from the HAPPHY trial. Cardiovascular risk and risk factors in a randomized trial of treatment based on the beta-blocker oxprenolol: the International Prospective Primary Prevention Study in Hypertension (IPPPSH). The IPPPSH Collaborative Group. Behavioral and physiological effects of a beta blocker and relaxation therapy on mild hypertensives. Oslo Hypertension Study. Randomised trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and beta-blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) study. Trial of Nonpharmacologic Intervention in the Elderly (TONE). Design and rationale of a blood pressure control trial. Myocardial ischemia in untreated hypertensive patients: effect of a single small oral dose of a beta-adrenergic blocking agent. Comparison of a chronotherapeutically administered beta blocker vs. a traditionally administered beta blocker in patients with hypertension. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older.
Men aged 40-64 years with mild to moderate hypertension [diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 100-130 mmHg] were randomized to treatment with a diuretic (n = 3272) or a beta-blocker (n = 3297), with additional drugs if necessary, to determine whether a beta-blocker based treatment differs from thiazide diuretic based treatment with regard to the prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) events and death. Patients with previous CHD, stroke or other serious diseases, or with contraindications to diuretics or beta-blockers were excluded. If normotension (DBP less than 95 mmHg) was not achieved by monotherapy, other antihypertensive drugs were added, but the two basic drugs were not crossed over. Patients were assessed at 6-monthly intervals. The mean follow-up for end-points was 45.1 months. Blood pressure (BP) side effects and end-points were recorded in a standardized manner. Entry characteristics and the BP reduction achieved were very similar in both treatment groups. All analyses were made on an intention-to-treat basis. The incidence of CHD did not differ between the two treatment groups. The incidence of fatal stroke tended to be lower in the beta-blocker treated group than in the diuretic treated group. Total mortality and the total number of end-points were similar in both groups. The percentage of patients withdrawn due to side effects was similar, whereas the number of reported symptoms, according to a questionnaire, was higher for patients on beta-blockers. The incidence of diabetes did not differ between the two groups. Subgroup analyses did not detect a difference in the effect of beta-blockers compared with diuretics in smokers as opposed to non-smokers, and beta-blockers also had the same effects as diuretics in the quartile with the highest predicted risk for CHD. Beta-blockers and thiazide diuretics were approximately equally well tolerated. The two drugs had a similar BP reducing effect although additional drugs had to be given more often in the diuretic group. Antihypertensive treatment based on a beta-blocker or on a thiazide diuretic could not be shown to affect the prevention of hypertensive complications, including CHD, to a different extent. Myocardial infarction, sudden cardiac death, cerebrovascular accidents, blood pressure control and treatment tolerability were studied in a randomized double-blind trial conducted in 6357 men and women aged 40-64 years with uncomplicated essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressures 100-125 mmHg). At the start of the trial 3185 patients received treatment based on a beta-blocker (oxprenolol), while in the remaining 3172 placebo replaced oxprenolol. Supplementary drugs, excluding beta-blockers, were used as necessary in both treatment groups, with the aim of reducing diastolic pressure to 95 mmHg or less. Patients were followed for 3-5 years, a total of 25 651 patient years at risk. In most respects the two groups fared equally well; sudden death (relative risk [RR] 1.08; 95% confidence interval [Cl] 0.68 and 1.72), myocardial infarction (RR 0.83; Cl 0.59 and 1.16) and cerebrovascular accident (RR 0.97; Cl 0.64 and 1.47) rates were similar. Beta-blocker based therapy was associated with significantly lower average blood pressures, earlier ECG normalization, less hypokalaemia and fewer withdrawals from double-blind treatment for uncontrolled hypertension. Doctor-elicited and patient-assessed unwanted effects demonstrated overall good tolerability. In smokers the cardiac event rate was doubled. We propose that beta-blocker treatment effects depend on smoking status, with a significant interaction benefiting non-smoking men. Lower blood pressures during treatment were associated with substantially lower rates for cardiac as well as cerebrovascular events. Proportional hazards analysis also underlines the importance of other cardiovascular risk factors. The IPPPSH stresses the need for a comprehensive approach to the management of blood pressure and other risk factors in hypertensive patients. In this industrial-based study we compared the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effectiveness of relaxation, a beta blocker, and the combined use of these two treatments in 47 untreated, mildly hypertensive blue collar steel workers. Using a randomized two by two factorial design, patients received either nadolol or placebo drug daily, and either a relaxation training or an education program, each lasting 8 weeks. A pre-intervention and post-intervention stress test measured response of heart rate and BP to mental and physical tasks. BP assessments were done at baseline, post-intervention, 1 month, and 3 month follow-up. Change in several self-report measures was determined. Results showed that beta blocker was more effective in lowering BP than placebo, but relaxation was not more effective in lowering BP than health education. The combined effect of beta blocker and relaxation was not superior to beta blocker alone. Compliance with relaxation practice was not superior to compliance with medication. We conclude that pharmacologic treatment is superior to the relaxation therapy tested. The Oslo Hypertension Study started in 1972 and lasted for 66 (range 60-78) months. A total of 785 healthy men, aged 40 to 49 years, with mild hypertension were randomised to a drug-treated group and to an untreated, control group. The drugs used for treatment were hydrochlorothiazide alone in 36%, hydrochlorothiazide and propranolol in 26%, hydrochlorothiazide and methyldopa in 20%, and other drugs in 18%. A total of 95% in the drug-treated group received hydrochlorothiazide. Pressure complications, such as stroke and aneurysms, only occurred in the control group. Coronary events were more numerous in the drug-treated group, so that the total incidence of cardiovascular complications did not significantly differ between the treated and untreated groups. After 5 and 10 years, total mortality was found to be the same in both groups. However, the 10-year coronary heart disease mortality was significantly higher in the drug-treated group than in the untreated controls (14 v 3, p less than 0.01). Possible reasons for the failing effect of drug treatment of hypertension on coronary heart disease is discussed, and attention is drawn to the adverse effect of diuretics and beta-adrenergic blockers, both on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism. This is in contrast to the alpha-adrenergic blocker, prazosin, which has been shown to improve the blood lipid profile. Calcium antagonists are a first-line treatment for hypertension. The effectiveness of diltiazem, a non-dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, in reducing cardiovascular morbidity or mortality is unclear. We compared the effects of diltiazem with that of diuretics, beta-blockers, or both on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients.
                In a prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint study, we enrolled 10,881 patients, aged 50-74 years, at health centres in Norway and Sweden, who had diastolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or more. We randomly assigned patients diltiazem, or diuretics, beta-blockers, or both. The combined primary endpoint was fatal and non-fatal stroke, myocardial infarction, and other cardiovascular death. Analysis was done by intention to treat.
                Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were lowered effectively in the diltiazem and diuretic and beta-blocker groups (reduction 20.3/18.7 vs 23.3/18.7 mm Hg; difference in systolic reduction p<0.001). A primary endpoint occurred in 403 patients in the diltiazem group and in 400 in the diuretic and beta-blocker group (16.6 vs 16.2 events per 1000 patient-years; relative risk 1.00 [95% CI 0.87-1.15], p=0.97). Fatal and non-fatal stroke occurred in 159 patients in the diltiazem group and in 196 in the diuretic and beta-blocker group (6.4 vs 7.9 events per 1000 patient-years; 0.80 [0.65-0.99], p=0.04) and fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction in 183 and 157 patients (7.4 vs 6.3 events per 1000 patient-years; 1.16 [0.94-1.44], p=0.17).
                Diltiazem was as effective as treatment based on diuretics, beta-blockers, or both in preventing the combined primary endpoint of all stroke, myocardial infarction, and other cardiovascular death. National and international policy-making organizations advocate nonpharmacologic therapies to reduce blood pressure (BP). However, data to support such recommendations in older persons are virtually nonexistent. The Trials of Nonpharmacologic Intervention in the Elderly (TONE) is a randomized, controlled trial that will test whether weight loss or a reduced sodium (Na) intake or both can maintain satisfactory BP control, without unacceptable side effects, after withdrawal of antihypertensive drug therapy. Medication-treated hypertensives (aged 60 to 80 years) with a systolic BP less than 145 mm Hg and a diastolic BP less than 85 mm Hg who are taking one antihypertensive medication are randomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) weight loss alone, (2) reduced Na intake alone, (3) combined weight loss and reduced Na intake, or (4) usual life-style (control group). Overweight participants are randomized to one of these four groups, while nonoverweight individuals are assigned to either the reduced Na intake or the usual life-style group. The interventions, tailored to the needs of older persons, use behavioral approaches to accomplish intervention-specific goals (weight loss > or = 10 lb, daily Na intake < or = 80 mEqa). Three months after the start of intervention, antihypertensive drug therapy is withdrawn. The primary trial end point is a BP of 150/90 mm Hg or higher, resumption of antihypertensive drug therapy, or the occurrence of a BP-related clinical complication during 2 to 3 years of follow-up. It is anticipated that TONE findings may identify an effective and acceptable nonpharmacologic approach to control hypertension in the increasingly large number of older persons treated with antihypertensive drug therapy. In a non-double-blind, prospective, randomized study, the intra-operative electrocardiograms of 128 mildly hypertensive surgical patients were examined in order to determine the incidence of myocardial ischemia during anesthesia. No patient had been receiving chronic antihypertensive therapy prior to the study, but a single small oral dose of a beta-adrenergic blocking agent (labetalol, atenolol, or oxprenolol) was given to 89 of them along with premedication. Forty-four per cent of the untreated control patients and 61% of the patients pretreated with a beta-adrenergic blocking agent had normal preoperative electrocardiograms and no risk factors for coronary artery disease other than hypertension (this difference between groups was not statistically significant). During tracheal intubation and/or emergence from anesthesia, a brief, self-limited episode of myocardial ischemia was detected in 11 of 39 untreated control patients, and in two of 89 patients pretreated with a beta-adrenergic blocking agent (P less than 0.001). Tachycardia always accompanied the ischemic events, but a conspicuous increase in blood pressure did not. The authors conclude that mild hypertension, when untreated prior to the induction of anesthesia, is associated with a high incidence of myocardial ischemia; and that a single small oral dose of a beta-adrenergic blocking agent, given with pre-medication, can significantly reduce that risk. Increasing systolic blood pressure and heart rate during the early morning results in increased myocardial oxygen demand. The use of beta blockers during this period may decrease cardiac workload, particularly in beta-blocker sensitive patients. The impact of a new chronotherapeutic beta blocker was assessed in 44 hypertensive patients. Patients were randomized to delayed-release propranolol (INP) dosed at 10 p.m. or to traditionally dosed propranolol (ILA) dosed at 8 a.m. for 4 weeks, following which they were switched to the alternative formulation for 4 weeks. Thirty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and pharmacokinetic measurements were obtained. INP and ILA resulted in significant reductions in mean 24-hour blood pressure (-9.0/-6.9 mm Hg and -10.4/-7.7 mm Hg, respectively). The top 25% of responders to high-dose propranolol (sensitive patients) were compared on each formulation. Mean trough reductions were -8.0/-6.7 mm Hg and -7.6/-5.8 mm Hg, respectively. Mean blood pressure reductions in the beta-blocker sensitive patients (n = 11) between 6 a.m. and noon were -15.2/-11.9 mm Hg on INP and -8.0/-4.6 mm Hg on ILA. Heart rate reduction was -14.1 bpm and double product reduction was -3319 in the INP patients between 6 a.m. and 12 noon compared with -10.5 and -2209 in the ILA patients. This study suggests that INP and ILA are effective once-a-day beta blockers, but the use of delayed-release propanolol results in a greater reduction in double product between 6 a.m. and noon in beta-blocker sensitive patients than does traditionally dosed propranolol. Whether the treatment of patients with hypertension who are 80 years of age or older is beneficial is unclear. It has been suggested that antihypertensive therapy may reduce the risk of stroke, despite possibly increasing the risk of death.
                We randomly assigned 3845 patients from Europe, China, Australasia, and Tunisia who were 80 years of age or older and had a sustained systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or more to receive either the diuretic indapamide (sustained release, 1.5 mg) or matching placebo. The angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor perindopril (2 or 4 mg), or matching placebo, was added if necessary to achieve the target blood pressure of 150/80 mm Hg. The primary end point was fatal or nonfatal stroke.
                The active-treatment group (1933 patients) and the placebo group (1912 patients) were well matched (mean age, 83.6 years; mean blood pressure while sitting, 173.0/90.8 mm Hg); 11.8% had a history of cardiovascular disease. Median follow-up was 1.8 years. At 2 years, the mean blood pressure while sitting was 15.0/6.1 mm Hg lower in the active-treatment group than in the placebo group. In an intention-to-treat analysis, active treatment was associated with a 30% reduction in the rate of fatal or nonfatal stroke (95% confidence interval [CI], -1 to 51; P=0.06), a 39% reduction in the rate of death from stroke (95% CI, 1 to 62; P=0.05), a 21% reduction in the rate of death from any cause (95% CI, 4 to 35; P=0.02), a 23% reduction in the rate of death from cardiovascular causes (95% CI, -1 to 40; P=0.06), and a 64% reduction in the rate of heart failure (95% CI, 42 to 78; P<0.001). Fewer serious adverse events were reported in the active-treatment group (358, vs. 448 in the placebo group; P=0.001).
                The results provide evidence that antihypertensive treatment with indapamide (sustained release), with or without perindopril, in persons 80 years of age or older is beneficial. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00122811 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).
                Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest reductions in cardiovascular disease and no significant effects on mortality. These effects of beta-blockers are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. The GRADE quality of this evidence is low, implying that the true effect of beta-blockers may be substantially different from the estimate of effects found in this review. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different sub-types of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and elderly patients.