Behavioral and physiological effects of a beta blocker and relaxation therapy on mild hypertensives. Influences of educational interventions and adverse news about calcium-channel blockers on first-line prescribing of antihypertensive drugs to elderly people in British Columbia. Additive effects of verapamil and enalapril in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. Beta-blockers versus diuretics in hypertensive men: main results from the HAPPHY trial. Pharmaceutical care program for patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Report of a double-blind clinical trial with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. 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. A computerized intervention to decrease the use of calcium channel blockers in hypertension. Lowering blood pressure reduces renal events in type 2 diabetes. Effects of candesartan cilexetil in patients with systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators.
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 way in which dissemination of evidence changes medical practice needs to be better understood. Controversy about calcium-channel blockers (CCB) in the past 3 years has provided a natural experiment, enabling assessment of the impact of media stories, a national warning letter, a teleconference, small group workshops, and newsletters on first-line prescribing of antihypertensive drugs.
                We included all physicians (4403) in British Columbia who prescribed a thiazide diuretic, beta-blocker, inhibitor of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), or CCB as the first antihypertensive agent for 36,507 residents aged 66 years and over, with no previous or concurrent sign of underlying cardiovascular disease. We used a database covering all prescriptions to elderly people to measure the change in proportion of newly treated patients who received each class of drug as first-line therapy. We used a matched cohort design for assessment of the teleconference and workshops, a randomised community design for the newsletters, and time-series analysis for the media impacts.
                The proportion of patients who received a CCB as first-line therapy declined gradually from 22% in early 1994 to 15% in late 1996. This proportion was not affected by two waves of adverse news about CCBs in 1995, but fell by 5% for 5 months and by 3% for 1 month after two waves in 1996. The proportion of patients who received either a CCB or an ACE inhibitor as first-line therapy, contrary to guidelines, was still 42% overall in 1996. The workshops and newsletters were followed by shifts from first-line CCB to first-line thiazide prescribing.
                Changes in prescribing practices occur gradually with the accumulation of small impacts from educational interventions and lay media attention. 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. 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. Pharmaceutical care programs may be an option to improve blood pressure (BP) control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of pharmaceutical care programs in treating patients with resistant hypertension.
                In a double-blind randomized clinical trial, 71 patients with uncontrolled BP were enrolled in a pharmaceutical care program or in a control group and underwent a series of cognitive tests. The primary outcome was change in ambulatory BP (ABP) between the baseline evaluation and the final visit 6 months later. The secondary outcomes were the frequency of drug-related problems and adherence as determined by plasma levels of hydrochlorothiazide.
                The delta-values between the intervention and control groups for ABP in the different daily periods, with the corresponding 95% confidence limits, adjusted for age and baseline BP were: 3 (-1 to 5), 2 (-2 to 4), and 5 (-1 to 6) mm Hg for 24 h, daily and nightly systolic BP, respectively. The corresponding values for diastolic BP were 1 (-1 to 3), 0 (-2 to 2), and 3 (-1 to 4) mm Hg, respectively. Hydrochlorothiazide was detected in the plasma in 21 of 27 patients in the intervention group that attended to all appointments and 24 of 30 patients in the control group (P = .904).
                The pharmaceutical care program tested in this trial was feasible and showed a trend for better BP control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. 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. To determine whether a computer-assisted reminder would alter prescribing habits for the treatment of hypertension in accordance with current clinical guidelines in a general internal medicine clinic.
                A randomized trial.
                The General Internal Medicine Clinic of the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle Division.
                Clinic providers were randomized to a control group (n = 35) or intervention group (n = 36). We targeted the providers of patients being treated for hypertension with calcium channel blockers, a class of drug not recommended for initial therapy.
                An automated computer query identified eligible patients and their providers. A guideline reminder was placed in the charts of patients of intervention providers; the charts of patients of control providers received no reminder.
                During the 5-month study period, 346 patients were seen by the 36 primary care providers (staff physicians, nurse practitioners, residents, and fellows) in the intervention group, and 373 patients were seen by the 35 providers in the control group. Intervention providers changed 39 patients (11.3%) to other medications during the study period, compared with 1 patient (<1.0%) of control providers (p < .0001). For patients whose therapy was unchanged, providers noted angina in 23.1%, indications other than those for hypertension in 9.5%, intolerable adverse effects with first-line therapy in 13.9%, and inadequate control with first-line therapy in 13.9%. Of those patients without provider-indicated contraindications, 23.6% were switched from calcium channel blockers to first-line agents during the intervention period.
                The use of a computerized, clinic-based intervention increased compliance with guidelines in the treatment of primary hypertension in general, and decreased the use of calcium channel blockers for the treatment of hypertension in particular. 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. 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.
ENaC blockers do not have a statistically or clinically significant BP lowering effect at low doses but trials at higher doses are not available. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with ENaC blockers.