C. Venkata S. Ram

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of hypertension in the community a statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension in the Community A Statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of hypertension in the community: a statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension.

Michael A. Weber, MD; Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD; William B. White, MD; Samuel Mann, MD; Lars H. Lindholm, MD; John G. Kenerson, MD; John M. Flack, MD; Barry L. Carter, Pharm D; Barry J. Materson, MD; C. Venkata S. Ram, MD; Debbie L. Cohen, MD; Jean-Claude Cadet, MD; Roger R. Jean-Charles, MD; Sandra Taler, MD; David Kountz, MD; Raymond R. Townsend, MD; John Chalmers, MD; Agustin J. Ramirez, MD; George L. Bakris, MD; Jiguang Wang, MD; Aletta E. Schutte, MD; John D. Bisognano, MD; Rhian M. Touyz, MD; Dominic Sica, MD; Stephen B. Harrap, MD

Comparison of Amlodipine and Benazepril Monotherapy to Amlodipine Plus Benazepril In Patients with Systemic Hypertension: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study

A single‐blind, run‐in, randomized, double‐blind, parallel‐group, placebo‐controlled comparison trial was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of low‐dose amlodipine 2.5 mg daily, low‐dose benazepril 10 mg daily, and the combination of the two drugs at the same doses used once daily in patients (n = 401) with mild to moderate (stages I and II) systemic hypertension. Both monotherapy regimens were shown to significantly reduce both systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared with baseline placebo values, and the combination regimen was shown to be superior in lowering systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with either of the monotherapy regimens. The combination therapy also resulted in a greater percentage of patients having successful clinical response in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure. The amlodipine and benazepril regimen was also shown to be associated with a similar incidence of adverse experiences as the active monotherapy or placebo regimens, although the group given combination therapy appeared to have a lower incidence of edema than the group given amlodipine alone. Low‐dose amlodipine (2.5 mg) plus benazepril (10 mg) provides greater blood‐pressure‐lowering efficacy than either monotherapy, and has an excellent safety profile.

Beta-blockers in hypertension.

Beta blockers have been used in the treatment of cardiovascular conditions for decades. Despite a long history and status as a guideline-recommended treatment option for hypertension, recent meta-analyses have brought into question whether β blockers are still an appropriate therapy given outcomes data from other antihypertensive drug classes. However, β blockers are a heterogenous class of agents with diverse pharmacologic and physiologic properties. Much of the unfavorable data revealed in the recent meta-analyses were gleaned from studies involving nonvasodilating, traditional β blockers, such as atenolol. However, findings with traditional β blockers may not be extrapolated to other members of the class, particularly those agents with vasodilatory activity. Vasodilatory β blockers (i.e., carvedilol and nebivolol) reduce blood pressure in large part through reducing systemic vascular resistance rather than by decreasing cardiac output, as is observed with traditional β blockers. Vasodilating ability may also ameliorate some of the concerns associated with traditional β blockade, such as the adverse effects on metabolic and lipid parameters, including an increased risk for new-onset diabetes. Furthermore, vasodilating ability is physiologically relevant and important in treating a condition with common co-morbidities involving metabolic and lipid abnormalities such as hypertension. In patients with hypertension and diabetes or coronary artery disease, vasodilating β blockers provide effective blood pressure control with neutral or beneficial effects on important parameters for the co-morbid disease. In conclusion, it is time for a reexamination of the clinical evidence for the use of β blockers in hypertension, recognizing that there are patients for whom β blockers, particularly those with vasodilatory actions, are an appropriate treatment option.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension in the Community

Michael A. Weber, MD; Ernesto L. Schiffrin, MD; William B. White, MD; Samuel Mann, MD; Lars H. Lindholm, MD; John G. Kenerson, MD; John M. Flack, MD; Barry L. Carter, Pharm D; Barry J. Materson, MD; C. Venkata S. Ram, MD; Debbie L. Cohen, MD; Jean-Claude Cadet, MD; Roger R. Jean-Charles, MD; Sandra Taler, MD; David Kountz, MD; Raymond R. Townsend, MD; John Chalmers, MD; Agustin J. Ramirez, MD; George L. Bakris, MD; Jiguang Wang, MD; Aletta E. Schutte, MD; John D. Bisognano, MD; Rhian M. Touyz, MD; Dominic Sica, MD; Stephen B. Harrap, MD

Application of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in differentiating between antihypertensive agents

PURPOSE This multicenter, double-blind, parallel group study assessed the usefulness of the ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) technique in differentiating between the once-daily administration of the beta blockers bisoprolol (10 to 20 mg) and atenolol (50 to 100 mg) in terms of efficacy and duration of action. PATIENTS AND METHODS The study population consisted of 659 patients with essential hypertension and an average office diastolic blood pressure (BP) between 95 and 115 mm Hg after 4 weeks of placebo treatment. Office BPs were recorded at the end of the 24-hour dosing interval (trough). ABPM was performed in 11 of the 28 institutions participating in this study in a total of 203 patients. These procedures were performed at the end of the placebo phase and again after 8 weeks of active treatment. RESULTS With the use of conventionally measured office BPs, the two drugs significantly (p < 0.001) decreased trough systolic and diastolic BPs to a similar extent. By 24-hour monitoring, bisoprolol demonstrated a 33% greater reduction in whole-day average diastolic BP than did atenolol (11.6 +/- 0.7 mm Hg versus 8.7 +/- 0.8 mm Hg, p < 0.01). Significant treatment differences in systolic (p < 0.05) and diastolic (p < 0.01) BPs were also noted for bisoprolol compared with atenolol during the final 4 hours of the dosing interval (-13.2 +/- 1.5/-10.9 +/- 1.0 mm Hg versus -8.9 +/- 1.6/-7.3 +/- 1.1 mm Hg, respectively), and over the time period 6:00 AM to noon (-14.2 +/- 1.3/-11.5 +/- 0.9 mm Hg versus -9.9 +/- 1.4/-7.7 +/- 0.9 mm Hg). CONCLUSIONS Whereas conventional BP measurements did not detect differences in the antihypertensive effects of the beta blockers bisoprolol and atenolol, ABPM revealed significant treatment differences in both the efficacy and duration of action of these two agents. These findings indicate the power of this technique to discriminate potentially important differences between apparently similar antihypertensive drugs.

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers: Current Status and Future Prospects

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), through their physiological blockade of the renin-angiotensin system, reduce morbidity and mortality associated with hypertension, heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, diabetic nephropathy, and chronic kidney disease. Among many attributes, excellent tolerability, and their ability to control hypertension for 24 hours with a positive effect on renal function position them as a useful choice for hypertension and related conditions. Because of the widespread actions of the renin-angiotensin system on critical tissues, treatment with ARBs may be beneficial in special populations. Ongoing and future studies will be needed to conclusively determine if ARBs also improve outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function, atrial fibrillation, cognitive dysfunction, and kidney transplant recipients. Preliminary clinical data also suggest that combining ARBs and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors may provide a more optimal blockade of the renin-angiotensin system and, therefore, may offer greater cardio- and nephroprotection. Future data will help delineate which ARBs and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are best combined and which patient populations might benefit from the dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system.

Hypertensive encephalopathy: recognition and management.

Hypertensive encephalopathy is a dramatic syndrome characterized by severe elevation of blood pressure, headache, visual disturbances, altered mental status, and convulsions. Although the syndrome is uncommon, to recognize and treat it promptly is important or the condition may prove to be fatal. Hypertensive encephalopathy should be distinguished from other cerebral complications of severe hypertension by obtaining careful history and performing thorough physical examination. The only definitive criterion for the diagnosis of this syndrome is its prompt response to therapy. If the patients condition does not improve with hypotensive therapy, the physician should immediately search for alternate diagnoses. Potent drugs are available for prompt reduction of blood pressure. There are few medical emergencies in which the objective response to therapy is so strikingly apparent as in hypertensive encephalopathy.

Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertension: Effects of prazosin therapy

Left ventricular hypertrophy is a common consequence of chronic hypertension. Although the hypertrophic response can be considered an adaptive mechanism in the initial stages, its progression is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality rates. Therefore, reversal of left ventricular hypertrophy may provide considerable clinical benefits to hypertensive patients. Although treatment of hypertension per se is important, blood pressure alone may not explain the course of the hypertrophic process. Not all antihypertensive drugs cause a reversal of hypertrophy, though they may produce equal effects on blood pressure. Factors other than the severity of blood pressure may play a role in the genesis of left ventricular hypertrophy. Adrenergic inhibitors cause its regression, whereas direct vasodilators may promote progression. In this study, therapy with the alpha-adrenergic inhibitor prazosin resulted in significant regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in a group of patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension. This study utilized a new technique--[123I]phenylpentadecanoic acid myocardioscintigraphy--to measure the left ventricular mass. In this study, it was shown that monotherapy with prazosin produced significant relative reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, along with significant reductions in left ventricular mass.

The inconsistent effects of calcium supplements upon blood pressure in primary hypertension

ABSTRACT: The effects of 800 mg of elemental calcium per day (calcium carbonate or calcium citrate) on blood pressure were compared with a placebo in a controlled randomized, crossover, double-blinded trail involving 26 patients with uncomplicated primary hypertension. Each patient took two of the three forms of therapy orally for 8-week intervals with a 2-week washout period in between. Standing mean blood pressure rose an average of 5.7 mm Hg on placebo, rose an average of 0.5 mm Hg on calcium carbonate, and fell an average of 2.2 mm Hg on calcium citrate. Changes in sitting mean pressures averaged +1.9 mm Hg on placebo, −0.4 mm Hg on calcium carbonate, and −0.4 mm Hg on calcium citrate. Some patients had a fall, others had a rise in blood pressure on each form of calcium. Similarly, inconsistent responses were noted among the nine patients who took both forms of calcium. Neither initial nor post-treatment biochemical measures nor patient characteristics were predictive of the blood pressure response. Combinations of various measures and characteristics analyzed by the multiple regression technique explained only 30% of the overall variability in blood pressure. Therefore, until ways can be found to predict the response, calcium supplements should not be routinely prescribed for the treatment of hypertension and, if given for any indication, blood pressure should be monitored