Jf May

Quality of life on antihypertensive therapy: a randomized double-blind controlled trial of captopril and atenolol.

A randomized double-blind study lasting 2 months was performed with either 25 mg captopril twice a day or 50 mg atenolol once a day in 125 patients with established diastolic hypertension (diastolic blood pressure greater than 95 mmHg) identified during a population screening programme of subjects aged less than 65 years. Quality of life was assessed from self-completed questionnaires. A significant fall in diastolic blood pressure occurred with both captopril (106.7 +/- 7.0 to 98.6 +/- 8.6 mmHg) and atenolol (107.4 +/- 7.5 to 98.2 +/- 8.1 mmHg) but there was no difference between the two drugs in the size of the fall. A measure of the number of symptomatic complaints, the symptom complaint rate, decreased with both drugs, by 1.3% for captopril and 3.1% for atenolol, but the difference between the drugs was not significant [1.8%; 95% confidence interval (Cl) - 1.3%, 4.9%]. There was a significant increase in the reporting of cough and runny nose in those on captopril compared with atenolol. A health index increased by 1.1% with captopril in comparison with no change on atenolol (difference 1.1%; 95% Cl - 2.0%, 4.2%). Psychological well-being was measured using the Symptom Rating Test. The improvement in total score was 1.4% with captopril and 2.3% with atenolol. The difference of 0.9% was not statistically significant (95% Cl - 1.2%, 3.0%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF DILTIAZEM AND LISINOPRIL ON LEFT-VENTRICULAR STRUCTURE AND FILLING IN MILD-TO-MODERATE HYPERTENSION

The comparative effects on echocardiographically determined left ventricular (LV) mass and pulsed Doppler derived indexes of LV diastolic filling were studied in previously untreated hypertensive patients after 6 months of treatment with diltiazem 300 mg once daily (o.d.) (n = 16), and lisinopril 20 mg o.d. (n = 20). LV mass index decreased in the lisinopril group (from 98 to 96 g/m2; mean difference after 6 months of treatment with diltiazem-lisinopril was 13.7 g/m2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 26.6, p < 0.05]. In both groups diastolic filling parameters improved, but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Both treatment regimens showed a similar decrease in office and maximal exercise systolic blood pressure (SPB). Ambulatory daytime BP was lower after lisinopril treatment (from 147/96 to 126/83 mm Hg) than after diltiazem treatment (from 142/93 to 135/87 mm Hg); mean difference between diltiazem and lisinopril after 6 months of treatment was 9.7 (95% CI 3.4 to 16.0, p < 0.05)/9.4 (95% CI 2.5 to 16.3, p < 0.05) mm Hg. Nighttime BP decreased from 129/81 to 113/70 mm Hg in the lisinopril group, but not in the diltiazem group (from 125/79 to 122/77 mm Hg); mean difference between diltiazem and lisinopril after 6 months of treatment was 4.4 (95% CI - 0.2 to 8.9)/6.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 12.0) mm Hg. Changes in diastolic filling parameters were significantly correlated with changes in LV mass index in the lisinopril group, suggesting that the improvements in diastolic filling in the diltazem group may be partly due to an effect on factors other than LV mass.

COMPARISON OF ATENOLOL 50 MG AND 100 MG AS INITIAL TREATMENT IN UNCOMPLICATED MILD TO MODERATE HYPERTENSION

SummaryAfter screening a local population in the northern part of The Netherlands for hypertension, 59 patients with a diastolic pressure (DP) between 95 and 130 mmHg were randomized and treated either with 50 mg atenolol (n=29) or 100 mg atenolol (n=30) for 1 month. There was no significant difference between the two treatments, neither in the fall in systolic and diastolic pressures nor in the number of complaints reported. It is concluded that in the initial treatment of uncomplicated mild to moderate hypertension, 100 mg atenolol has no advantage over a 50 mg dose.

COMPARISON OF LABETALOL, PROPRANOLOL AND HYDRALAZINE IN HYPERTENSIVE OUT-PATIENTS

SummaryIn a randomised cross-over trial the combination labetalol/hydrochlorothiazide was compared with the combination of propranolol/hydralazine/hydrochlorothiazide in 34 uncomplicated hypertensive patients, who were not satisfactorily controlled with hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg alone. The elevated diastolic pressure (D.P.) in 27 patients responded satisfactorily to the labetalol schedule and in 28 patients to the propranolol/hydralazine schedule. No difference was found in the rate of decrease of D.P., nor in the disappearance of hypertension — related complaints. Although the duration of the washout between treatments was at least one month, treatment was significantly more efficacious during the second period. Labetalol pre-treatment especially seemed to enhance the effect of subsequent propranolol/hydralazine administration. Side effects due to therapy were rare and were not related to any particular treatment. The median daily dose of labetalol in responders was 600 mg and that of propranolol/hydralazine 120/60 mg (in both therapies hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg was given in addition). Patients showed a slight preference for the labetaol medication. It is concluded that labetalol/hydrochlorothiazide and propranolol/hydralazine/hydrochlorothiazide are equally satisfactory in the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension.

A comparison of labetalol and prazosin combined with atenolol in non-responders to atenolol plus hydrochlorothiazide in uncomplicated hypertension

SummaryAfter screening two local populations in the northern part of The Netherlands for hypertension, patients with a diastolic pressure (DP) between 95 and 120 mmHg were treated daily either with 50 mg hydrochlorothiazide or 100 mg atenolol. Non-responders were given the combination and if necessary the dose of atenolol was increased to 200 mg. Non-responders to the latter combination were randomized and treated either with 50 mg hydrochlorothiazide and labetalol or with 50 mg hydrochlorothiazide, 200 mg atenolol and prazosin. If after 1 month a DP≤90 mmHg had been reached the patient was reassessed after a further 3 months. If a DP>90 mmHg was found the dose of labetalol or prazosin was increased and the patient was re-examined after 1 month.This protocol was followed until the maximum dose was reached or adverse reactions prevented a further increase in dosage.During 6 months of treatment there was a further drop in systolic and diastolic blood pressures under both regimens of, respectively, 8.6 and 2.4 mmHg for labetalol, and 7.7 and 5.0 mmHg for the prazosin group. At the end of the period the average daily doses of labetalol and prazosin were 1256 mg and 4.3 mg, respectively. There was no significant difference in the average number of complaints between the labetalol and the prazosin group.