Effect of allopurinol on blood pressure of adolescents with newly diagnosed essential hypertension: a randomized trial. Pharmaceutical care program for patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Report of a double-blind clinical trial with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial. Additive effects of verapamil and enalapril in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. Impact of the treatment of isolated systolic hypertension on behavioral variables. Results from the systolic hypertension in the elderly program. A multifactorial trial design to assess combination therapy in hypertension. Treatment with bisoprolol and hydrochlorothiazide. Treatment of arterial hypertension in diabetic humans: importance of therapeutic selection. A prospective controlled trial of metoprolol-hydralazine treatment in hypertension during pregnancy. Non-pharmacological treatment of hypertension in primary health care: a 2-year open randomized controlled trial of lifestyle intervention against hypertension in eastern Finland.
Hyperuricemia is a predictor for the development of hypertension and is commonly present in new-onset essential hypertension. Experimentally increasing uric acid levels using a uricase inhibitor causes systemic hypertension in animal models.
                To determine whether lowering uric acid lowers blood pressure (BP) in hyperuricemic adolescents with newly diagnosed hypertension.
                Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial (September 2004-March 2007) involving 30 adolescents (aged 11-17 years) who had newly diagnosed, never-treated stage 1 essential hypertension and serum uric acid levels > or = 6 mg/dL. Participants were treated at the Pediatric Hypertension Clinic at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston. Patients were excluded if they had stage 2 hypertension or known renal, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal tract, hepatic, or endocrine disease.
                Allopurinol, 200 mg twice daily for 4 weeks, and placebo, twice daily for 4 weeks, with a 2-week washout period between treatments. The order of the treatments was randomized.
                Change in casual and ambulatory blood pressure.
                For casual BP, the mean change in systolic BP for allopurinol was -6.9 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.5 to -9.3 mm Hg) vs -2.0 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.3 to -4.3 mm Hg; P = .009) for placebo, and the mean change in diastolic BP for allopurinol was -5.1 mm Hg (95% CI, -2.5 to -7.8 mm Hg) vs -2.4 (95% CI, 0.2 to -4.1; P = .05) for placebo. Mean change in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP for allopurinol was -6.3 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.8 to -8.9 mm Hg) vs 0.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.4 to -2.9 mm Hg; P = .001) for placebo and mean 24-hour ambulatory diastolic BP for allopurinol was -4.6 mm Hg (-2.4 to -6.8 mm Hg) vs -0.3 mm Hg (95% CI, 2.3 to -2.1 mm Hg; P = .004) for placebo. Twenty of the 30 participants achieved normal BP by casual and ambulatory criteria while taking allopurinol vs 1 participant while taking placebo (P < .001).
                In this short-term, crossover study of adolescents with newly diagnosed hypertension, treatment with allopurinol resulted in reduction of BP. The results represent a new potential therapeutic approach, although not a fully developed therapeutic strategy due to potential adverse effects. These preliminary findings require confirmation in larger clinical trials.
                clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00288184. 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. Despite evidence of efficacy of antihypertensive agents in treating hypertensive patients, safety and efficacy of antihypertensive agents for coronary artery disease (CAD) have been discerned only from subgroup analyses in large trials.
                To compare mortality and morbidity outcomes in patients with hypertension and CAD treated with a calcium antagonist strategy (CAS) or a non-calcium antagonist strategy (NCAS).
                Randomized, open label, blinded end point study of 22 576 hypertensive CAD patients aged 50 years or older, which was conducted September 1997 to February 2003 at 862 sites in 14 countries.
                Patients were randomly assigned to either CAS (verapamil sustained release) or NCAS (atenolol). Strategies specified dose and additional drug regimens. Trandolapril and/or hydrochlorothiazide was administered to achieve blood pressure goals according to guidelines from the sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI) of less than 140 mm Hg (systolic) and less than 90 mm Hg (diastolic); and less than 130 mm Hg (systolic) and less than 85 mm Hg (diastolic) if diabetes or renal impairment was present. Trandolapril was also recommended for patients with heart failure, diabetes, or renal impairment.
                Primary: first occurrence of death (all cause), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; other: cardiovascular death, angina, adverse experiences, hospitalizations, and blood pressure control at 24 months.
                At 24 months, in the CAS group, 6391 patients (81.5%) were taking verapamil sustained release; 4934 (62.9%) were taking trandolapril; and 3430 (43.7%) were taking hydrochlorothiazide. In the NCAS group, 6083 patients (77.5%) were taking atenolol; 4733 (60.3%) were taking hydrochlorothiazide; and 4113 (52.4%) were taking trandolapril. After a follow-up of 61 835 patient-years (mean, 2.7 years per patient), 2269 patients had a primary outcome event with no statistically significant difference between treatment strategies (9.93% in CAS and 10.17% in NCAS; relative risk [RR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.06). Two-year blood pressure control was similar between groups. The JNC VI blood pressure goals were achieved by 65.0% (systolic) and 88.5% (diastolic) of CAS and 64.0% (systolic) and 88.1% (diastolic) of NCAS patients. A total of 71.7% of CAS and 70.7% of NCAS patients achieved a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg.
                The verapamil-trandolapril-based strategy was as clinically effective as the atenolol-hydrochlorothiazide-based strategy in hypertensive CAD patients. 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. Little information has been published on the impact of antihypertensive medications on quality of life in older persons. Particular concern has existed that lowering systolic blood pressure in older persons might have adverse consequences on cognition, mood, or leisure activities.
                A multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted over an average of 5 years' followup involving 16 academic clinical trial clinics. Participants consisted of 4736 persons (1.06%) selected from 447,921 screenees aged 60 years and older. Systolic blood pressure at baseline ranged from 160 to 219 mm Hg, while diastolic blood pressure was less than 90 mm Hg. Participants were randomized to active antihypertensive drug therapy or matching placebo. Active treatment consisted of 12.5 to 25 mg of chlorthalidone for step 1, while step 2 consisted of 25 to 50 mg of atenolol. If atenolol was contraindicated, 0.05 to 0.10 mg of reserpine could be used for the second-step drug. The impact of drug treatment on measures of cognitive, emotional, and physical function and leisure activities was assessed.
                Our analyses demonstrate that active treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program cohort had no measured negative effects and, for some measures, a slight positive effect on cognitive, physical, and leisure function. The positive findings in favor of the treatment group were small. There was no effect on measures related to emotional state. Measures of cognitive and emotional function were stable in both groups for the duration of the study. Both treatment groups showed a modest trend toward deterioration of some measures of physical and leisure function over the study period.
                The overall study cohort exhibited decline over time in activities of daily living, particularly the more strenuous ones, and some decline in certain leisure activities. However, mood, cognitive function, basic self-care, and moderate leisure activity were remarkably stable for both the active and the placebo groups throughout the entire study. Results of this study support the inference that medical treatment of isolated systolic hypertension does not cause deterioration in measures of cognition, emotional state, physical function, or leisure activities. The safety and effectiveness of different dosages and combinations of antihypertensive agents can be efficiently studied using a multifactorial trial design. In consultation with the Cardio-Renal Division of the Food and Drug Administration, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3 x 4 factorial trial of bisoprolol, a beta 1-selective adrenergic blocking agent, and hydrochlorothiazide.
                A total of 512 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were randomized to once-daily treatment with bisoprolol (0, 2.5, 10, or 40 mg), hydrochlorothiazide (0, 6.25, or 25 mg), and all possible combinations. Diastolic and systolic blood pressures were monitored during this 12-week trial.
                The effects of bisoprolol and hydrochlorothiazide were additive with respect to reductions in diastolic and systolic blood pressures over the dosage ranges studied. The addition of hydrochlorothiazide (or bisoprolol) to therapy with bisoprolol (or hydrochlorothiazide) produced an incremental reduction in blood pressure. Dosages of hydrochlorothiazide as low as 6.25 mg/d contributed a significant antihypertensive effect. A hydrochlorothiazide dosage of 6.25 mg/d produced significantly less hypokalemia and less of an increase in uric acid levels than a dosage of 25 mg/d. The low-dose combination of bisoprolol, 2.5 mg/d, and hydrochlorothiazide, 6.25 mg/d, reduced diastolic blood pressure to lower than 90 mm Hg in 61% of patients and demonstrated a safety profile that compared favorably with that of placebo.
                The utility of factorial design trials to characterize dose-response relationships and to test the potential interactions between various antihypertensive agents has been demonstrated. The combination of low dosages of bisoprolol and hydrochlorothiazide may be a rational alternative to conventional stepped-care therapy for the initial treatment of patients with mild to moderate hypertension. This study was undertaken to test the hypothesis that, given equal arterial pressure reductions, the combination of an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and calcium antagonist slows declines in renal function and yields greater reductions in albuminuria over either agent alone. This hypothesis was evaluated in four groups of hypertensive, non-insulin dependent, diabetic subjects with renal insufficiency (N = 30). Renal hemodynamics, albuminuria and metabolic parameters were evaluated for a period of one year. Subjects were all placed on a 90 mEq sodium, 0.8 g/kg protein, 1500 calorie American Diabetes Association diet for the entire length of the study. Subjects were followed for two weeks off antihypertensive medications and were subsequently randomized to either lisinopril, alone (group I), sustained release verapamil, alone (group II), reduced doses of both lisinopril and sustained release verapamil (group III), and hydrochlorothiazide with guanfacine (group IV). At the end of one year group III had the greatest reduction in albuminuria (78 +/- 7%, group III vs. 59% +/- 4, group I: P less than 0.05). In addition, the decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was the lowest in this group (0.28 +/- 0.07, group III vs. 0.69 +/- 0.12, group I; P less than 0.05) although there was no significant difference between groups II and IV. The highest side effect profiles were noted in group IV, the least in group III. The greatest reductions in renal hemodynamics occurred in all groups within the first month; however, striking differences between groups were noted (7.4 +/- 2%, group I vs. 1.4 +/- 2%, group III; P less than 0.05). We conclude that the combination of reduced doses of an ACE inhibitor and calcium antagonist attenuate both albuminuria and the rate of decline in glomerular filtration rate. Furthermore, the combination of these classes of agents appear to yield the lowest side effect profile over either agent alone. Lastly, high doses of ACE inhibition alone may be detrimental to renal function in late stage diabetics with renal insufficiency. In an open, controlled trial, treatment with a combination of metoprolol and hydralazine was compared with non-pharmacological management of mild and moderate hypertension in pregnancy. One hundred and sixty-one women participated in the study. The drug-treated group showed significantly better blood pressure control than the group not given antihypertensives. Induction of labor before term, because of maternal or fetal complications, was somewhat more frequent in the control group. Nine women in the treatment group and 5 in the control group developed albuminuria. Three infants in the drug-treated group died perinatally, and one in the control group. The outcome for the newborns was similar in both groups concerning birth weight, head circumference and Apgar score and in the frequencies of respiratory distress, bradycardia and hypoglycemia. The better blood pressure control achieved with these drugs makes it possible to treat the patient at home and reduce the risk of emergency delivery, but treatment does not seem to be mandatory for a good outcome of the pregnancy in cases of mild and moderate hypertension during pregnancy. To assess whether lifestyle counselling is effective in non-pharmacological treatment of hypertension in primary health care.
                Open randomized controlled trial.
                Ten municipal primary health care centres in eastern Finland.
                Seven hundred and fifteen subjects aged 25-74 years with systolic blood pressure 140-179 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure 90-109 mmHg or antihypertensive drug treatment.
                Systematic health counselling given by local public health nurses for 2 years.
                Blood pressure, lipids and lifestyle data were collected annually.
                Among participants with no antihypertensive drug treatment, the net reductions after 1 year both in systolic blood pressure [-2.6 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (CI), -4.7 to -0.5 mmHg] and in diastolic blood pressure (-2.7 mmHg; 95% CI, -4.0 to -1.4 mmHg) were significant in favour of the intervention group. This difference in blood pressure change was maintained during the second year. In participants with antihypertensive drug treatment, no significant difference in blood pressure reduction was seen between the groups during the study.
                A relatively modest, but systematic counselling in primary health care can, at least among untreated hypertensive subjects, produce reductions in blood pressure levels that are modest for the individual, but very important from the public health point of view.
Meta-analysis was not possible in this systematic review. In the one study that matched the inclusion criteria allopurinol decreased "in office" and ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP. Because there was only one included RCT, the number of patients providing data on pharmacotherapy for hyperuricemia in hypertension is small and restricted to adolescents with recently diagnosed mild essential hypertension. Hence, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of allopurinol or other hypouricemic drugs as an initial or adjuvant treatment of hypertension and more RCTs are needed.