Marcia Poland

Intravenous labetalol in the treatment of severe hypertension and hypertensive emergencies

The antihypertensive effects of intravenous labetalol were evaluated in 59 patients with hypertensive crises or severe hypertension in need of rapid lowering of blood pressure in a multicenter study. Patients appearing with a supine diastolic blood pressure 125 mm Hg or greater, or a supine systolic blood pressure of more than 200 mm Hg received an initial mini-bolus injection (20 mg) of labetalol. This was followed by repeated incremental doses of 20 to 80 mg given at 10 minute intervals to achieve a supine diastolic blood pressure of less than 95 mm Hg or decrease 30 mm Hg or greater, or a satisfactory decrease in systolic blood pressure. Patients were stratified into those who had taken antihypertensive medication within 24 hours and those who had not. The initial mini-bolus injection caused rapid but not abrupt reduction in blood pressure; the baseline mean blood pressure decreased 23/14 mm Hg. Further injections were needed in the majority of patients (mean: 197 mg). The blood pressure reduction after the last dose of labetalol was 55/33 mm Hg. In pretreated patients and in those who had no medication for 24 hours prior to the intravenous labetalol, the response was similar. Heart rate decreased 10 beats per minute in the total population. In patients pretreated with beta-adrenergic blockers, blood pressure response was similar to that in the total group (59/35 versus 55/33 mm Hg), but heart rate remained essentially unchanged. The dose required to achieve the therapeutic effect was less in pretreated patients than in untreated patients, but the duration of action was shorter. No serious adverse effects were encountered even in patients with concomitant diagnoses of acute left ventricular failure, myocardial infarction, stable congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, angina pectoris, acute stroke, transient ischemic attack or encephalopathy. Labetalol is a safe and effective treatment for a rapid blood pressure reduction in hypertensive emergencies.

Efficacy of nabumetone versus diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen, and piroxicam in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis

The efficacy of nabumetone was compared with that of diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen, and piroxicam in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter trial. Patients > or = 18 years with clinical and radiographic evidence of OA or RA (functional class I, II, or III), who provided written informed consent, were eligible. To mimic real-life therapy, no washout phase preceded randomization. Eligible patients were assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive nabumetone or a comparator NSAID for 12 weeks. Thus a total of 4,411 eligible patients were randomized to receive nabumetone (N = 3,315) or one of the comparator NSAIDs (N = 1,096). Initial daily doses were: nabumetone, 1,000 mg; diclofenac, 100 mg; naproxen, 500 mg; ibuprofen, 1,200 mg; piroxicam, 10 mg. Dosage increases were permitted after a 2-week trial period. All patients were evaluated at baseline, and at 4 and 12 weeks. Of all patients randomized, approximately 46% had RA and approximately 54% had OA. Demographic characteristics were similar for the nabumetone and comparator NSAID treatment groups. In OA, nabumetone was as effective as the comparator NSAIDs in the physician and patient global assessments of disease activity, in improving the Activities and Lifestyle Index, and in decreasing the degree of pain. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients withdrawn for lack of efficacy when treated with nabumetone or one of the comparator NSAIDs. In contrast, nabumetone was significantly (p < or = 0.02) more effective than the comparator NSAIDs in RA patients for the global assessments of disease activity, pain relief, and improving the Activities and Lifestyle Index, primarily due to the poor response in the ibuprofen and piroxicam treatment groups. Furthermore, fewer nabumetone-treated RA patients (8.8%) withdrew for lack of efficacy than those treated with diclofenac (10.3%), naproxen (11%), piroxicam (13.5%), or ibuprofen (13.2%). In conclusion, in a large, randomized, open-label trial that mimicked real-life therapy, nabumetone was as effective as diclofenac, naproxen, piroxicam, and ibuprofen for the treatment of patients with OA. However, in RA, nabumetone was significantly more effective than the comparator NSAIDs, and fewer patients were withdrawn because of lack of efficacy.

Safety experience with nabumetone versus diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen, and piroxicam in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis

The comparative safety of nabumetone (1,000-2,000 mg/day) versus diclofenac (100-200 mg/day), naproxen (500-1,500 mg/day), piroxicam (10-20 mg/day), and ibuprofen (1,200-3,200 mg/day) was evaluated in a 12-week, randomized, open-label, multicenter study. Patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were enrolled in a 3:1 ratio (nabumetone:one of the four comparator NSAIDs). The incidence of > or = 1 adverse event considered by the investigator to be related or probably related to therapy was similar in all groups. However, significantly (p < 0.02) more diclofenac-treated patients experienced abdominal pain and/or gastritis than nabumetone-treated patients. Naproxen-treated patients experienced significantly (p < 0.002) more dyspepsia as compared with patients treated with nabumetone or ibuprofen and significantly (p < or = 0.001) more nabumetone-treated patients experienced diarrhea than patients treated with naproxen, ibuprofen, or piroxicam. Ulcers occurred in one (0.03%) nabumetone-treated patient versus six (0.5%) patients treated with one of the comparator NSAIDs (p = 0.001). A decrease in hemoglobin > or = 1.5 g/dL occurred in fewer nabumetone-treated patients than in patients treated with diclofenac (p < 0.04), ibuprofen (p < or = 0.04), or piroxicam (p = 0.055). Finally, a similar percentage of patients in all treatment groups withdrew from the study because of adverse events related or probably related to treatment. More (p < 0.001) diclofenac-treated patients withdrew because of elevated hepatic transaminases than patients treated with the other agents. Withdrawal because of gastritis was also noted for more diclofenac-treated patients than nabumetone-treated patients (p < 0.04). In conclusion, nabumetone was demonstrated to be at least as safe as diclofenac, piroxicam, ibuprofen, and naproxen as related to subjective complaints, such as dyspepsia or gastritis. However, more serious events, such as ulcers or meaningful decreases in hemoglobin, seem to occur less often with nabumetone.

Labetalol therapy in patients with systemic hypertension and angina pectoris: effects of combined alpha and beta adrenoceptor blockade

Abstract The effects of oral labetalol, an alpha-beta adrenoceptor blocker, were evaluated in 10 patients with angina pectoris and hypertension. After 3 weeks of placebo, increasing doses of labetalol (300 to 1,200 mg/day) were given over 4 weeks followed by a rapid drug withdrawal phase. The frequency of anginal attacks and exercise tolerance were measured as were noninvasive indexes of left ventricular function (echocardiography, systolic time intervals), plasma renin activity and platelet function (aggregability). Compared with placebo, during labetalol therapy the frequency of anginal attacks was reduced, exercise time increased (from 351.6 ± 56.2 to 463.2 ± 45.2 seconds , P kilopond - meters , p mm Hg (mean ± Standard error of the mean) (p mm Hg (p beats / min (p mm Hg (p mm Hg (P beats / min (p

Efficacy and safety of nabumetone versus diclofenac, naproxen, ibuprofen, and piroxicam in the elderly☆

In a randomized, open-label, controlled, multicenter, 12-week study, the efficacy and safety of nabumetone (1,000-2,000 mg/day) versus diclofenac (100-200 mg/day), naproxen (500-1,500 mg/day), ibuprofen (1,200-3,200 mg/day), or piroxicam (10-20 mg/day) were evaluated in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The results in elderly patients (> or = 65 years of age) are presented. Nabumetone was as effective as the comparator nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment of elderly OA and RA patients. Ibuprofen and diclofenac caused significantly (p < 0.05) more abdominal pain than nabumetone (8.5%, 13.1%, and 4.1%, respectively). The frequency of abdominal pain was dose related for all NSAIDs except nabumetone. Diarrhea was reported by significantly (p < 0.02) more nabumetone-treated (6.6%) than ibuprofen-treated (0.9%) elderly patients, but the incidence of diarrhea was not dose related. There were no clinically significant changes in renal function with nabumetone or the comparator NSAIDs. A significant change in hepatic enzymes occurred in elderly patients treated with diclofenac (3.3%), which was different than for patients treated with nabumetone (p < 0.04), naproxen (p < 0.06), or ibuprofen (p < 0.06). With regard to withdrawals for adverse events, more (p < 0.04) piroxicam-treated patients (4.9%) withdrew than nabumetone-treated patients (1%). In addition, doubling the dose of nabumetone from 1,000 mg/day to 2,000 mg/day did not result in a proportional increase in adverse events. However, with the comparator NSAIDs, proportional increases in adverse events occurred with increased dose. Finally, the efficacy and safety of nabumetone in elderly patients were similar to the efficacy and safety observed in nonelderly patients.

Multicenter clinical evaluation of long-term efficacy and safety of labetalol in treatment of hypertension

The long-term efficacy and safety of labetalol, an antihypertensive agent with combined beta- and alpha-blocking activity, were evaluated alone (number = 193) and in combination with a diuretic (number = 144) in an open-label multicenter trial of 337 hypertensive patients aged 21 to 75 years, including initially 205 (61 percent) men and 219 (65 percent) Caucasians. There were 219 (65 percent) mild, 85 (25 percent) moderate, and 33 (10 percent) severe hypertensive patients. Labetalol (100 to 1,200 mg twice a day) alone or in combination with a diuretic reduced the mean standing blood pressure by 13/11 and 25/16 mm Hg to 135/88 and 130/91 mm Hg, respectively (p less than 0.01), and supine blood pressure by 6/7 and 18/13 mm Hg to 141/86 and 138/90 mm Hg (p less than 0.01), respectively. Blood pressure reductions observed at one month were maintained after one year; 206 (62 percent) patients had 10 mm Hg or greater reductions and 184 (56 percent) patients were maintained at diastolic blood pressures less than 90 mm Hg. Most frequently reported drug-related side effects included fatigue (14 percent), dizziness (12 percent), nausea (11 percent), nasal stuffiness (8 percent), headache (4 percent), and male sexual dysfunction (14 percent). Side effects were generally of mild to moderate intensity and often transient. In addition, in 27 (8 percent) patients reversible asymptomatic transaminase elevations to greater than twice normal developed at some time during the study. In 13 (4 percent) patients these alterations resolved during continued labetalol therapy, but in five (2 percent) patients these marked elevations led to discontinuation of the drug. A total of 32 (9.5 percent) patients were terminated prematurely due to side effects (most commonly genitourinary or gastrointestinal) possibly attributable to the drug. These findings indicate that labetalol with or without a diuretic is a potentially effective, safe, and relatively well-tolerated long-term antihypertensive therapy.

Influence of beta2 agonism and beta1 and beta2 antagonism on adverse effects and plasma lipoproteins: Results of a multicenter comparison of dilevalol and metoprolol

Dilevalol combines vasodilation due to selective beta 2 agonism and nonselective beta antagonism. We studied 311 patients randomized to dilevalol and 138 to metoprolol in a multicenter trial. After a 4-week placebo washout, dilevalol was titrated from 200 to 1,600 mg once daily and metoprolol from 100 to 400 mg to a goal supine diastolic blood pressure less than 90 and greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg decrease from baseline. Responders were followed for 1 year. The average age of patients was 51 years; 72% were men and 54% were white. Both drugs reduced blood pressure effectively to a similar level. Fewer patients discontinued dilevalol than did those taking metoprolol (9 vs 16%; p less than 0.03). More metoprolol-treated patients withdrew because of depression (6 vs less than 1%; p = 0.03) and impotence (5 vs less than 1%; p = 0.03). Lipoprotein levels before and after treatment were measured in 99 patients treated for 53.5 weeks with dilevalol (mean dose 438 mg). Dilevalol increased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol by 2.5 mg/dl to 47.2 (p = 0.05), reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol by 2.5 mg/dl, increased HDL/LDL by 0.03, and decreased total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol by 0.18. Triglycerides increased by 21 mg/dl (p = 0.06). In patients with an initial HDL cholesterol less than 35 mg/dl, dilevalol increased it by 9 mg/dl. In patients treated with metoprolol, the only significant change (p = 0.02) was a 41.9-mg/dl increase in triglyceride levels.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Dilevalol compared with propranolol and placebo for systemic hypertension.

Dilevalol is a new antihypertensive agent that is both a vasodilator, through its beta 2-agonist action, and a nonselective beta antagonist. Two multicenter, double-blind studies were performed: study 1 compared dilevalol administered once-daily with either dilevalol or propranolol every 12 hours; study 2 compared dilevalol administered once daily with placebo. Both studies had a placebo run-in period to establish that the baseline supine diastolic blood pressures were consistent in the mild to moderate severity range (95 to 115 mm Hg) at 2 consecutive visits for study 1 and in the mild severity range (95 to 105 mm Hg) in study 2. Patients then were randomized to the double-blind titration phase, during which doses were titrated over a 9-week period to achieve a supine diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg and a decrease from baseline of greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg. Patients were then maintained on a fixed dose for 2 months (study 1) or for 1 month (study 2). Dilevalol given once daily was as effective in reducing supine diastolic blood pressure as dilevalol every 12 hours and propranolol every 12 hours (study 1) and was superior to placebo (p less than 0.001) (study 2). In both studies, dilevalol given once daily was effective and well tolerated. The side-effect profile of dilevalol was similar to that of placebo and different from that of propranolol. Treatment with dilevalol resulted in significantly less fatigue (p less than 0.05), bradycardia (less than 50 beats/minute) and mental depression than with propranolol, but significantly (p less than 0.05) more diarrhea/loose stools.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Treatment of severe hypertension with labetalol compared with methyldopa and furosemide: Results of a long-term, double-blind, multicenter trial☆

Eighty-one severely hypertensive patients were enrolled in a multicenter, double-blind, parallel group study evaluating the efficacy and safety of labetalol alone or in combination with furosemide versus methyldopa in combination with furosemide. A one day to four week placebo lead-in phase was followed by a one- to six-week titration period and a one-year maintenance period. Treatment with labetalol alone or in combination with furosemide, as well as methyldopa plus furosemide, was associated with significant reductions in supine and standing blood pressure levels. Moreover, after six months and one year of treatment, respectively, labetalol caused a significantly (p less than 0.05) greater reduction in the systolic blood pressure than the methyldopa regimen. The antihypertensive effect of labetalol was associated with small, yet significant reductions in heart rate; in contrast, resting tachycardia was observed in methyldopa-treated patients. Side effect profiles of the two treatments were different, with nausea being the most commonly reported side effect during labetalol therapy, and asthenia, somnolence, and dry mouth during methyldopa therapy. Overall, 33 of 65 (53 percent) labetalol-treated and 28 of 60 (47 percent) methyldopa-treated patients had at least a good response (that is, standing diastolic blood pressure 90 to 94 mm Hg) to therapy, including 26 (40 percent) and 22 (37 percent) patients, respectively, who had standing diastolic blood pressure levels of less than 90 mm Hg. Thus, labetalol is a potentially safe and effective agent in the long-term management of the patient with severe hypertension.

Effects of dilevalol, metoprolol and atenolol on left ventricular mass and function in nonelderly and elderly hypertensive patients

Using serial M-mode echocardiographic determinations of left ventricular (LV) mass and function, the effects of dilevalol, a selective beta 2 agonist with nonselective beta-antagonist properties, were compared with those of metoprolol in 2 centers in double-blind, randomized clinical trials using similar protocols in nonelderly hypertensive patients (aged less than 65 years) (study 1). In a separate bicenter study with a similar design, dilevalol was compared with atenolol in elderly hypertensive patients (aged greater than or equal to 65 years) (study 2). Patients in both studies received placebo for 2 to 4 weeks, and were then randomized to receive increasing doses of dilevalol (200, 400, 800, 1,600 mg) or metoprolol (100, 200, 300, 400 mg) in study 1, and dilevalol (100, 200, 400, 800 mg) or atenolol (50, 100 mg) in study 2, to achieve a supine diastolic blood pressure (BP) of less than 90 mm Hg. In both studies, LV function and mass (Penn convention) were determined by echocardiographic examinations performed before randomization and at the end of the active treatment phase. Dilevalol, metoprolol and atenolol significantly reduced BP compared with placebo. In the nonelderly patients, a modest reduction in LV mass was observed with dilevalol (p less than 0.03) but not with metoprolol. Indexes of LV function--as assessed by end-diastolic and end-systolic dimensions, LV ejection time and ejection fraction--were better preserved by dilevalol than by metoprolol. In the elderly, neither dilevalol nor atenolol affected LV mass; however, indexes of LV function were better preserved with dilevalol than with atenolol.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)