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)

Groningen Hypertension Service: ten years experience in detecting and treating hypertension in a population of 23,340 persons in rural and urban districts in Holland with a special hypertension service.

The Groningen Hypertension Service (GHS) has demonstrated that provision of training for volunteers, technical assistance and the services of the General Practitioner Laboratory (a private foundation offering laboratory and diagnostic facilities) have enabled large rural and urban districts to be screened for hypertension within a short period of time at low cost. The GHS trained volunteers and paramedics, who assisted with the treatment for six months. The General Practitioner Laboratory evaluated treatment in nearly 600 hypertensive patients, leading to the institution of low-dose therapy and careful investigation of side-effects.

Characterization of hypertensive subjects who become normotensive during three months of office BP follow-up: comparison with subjects with sustained hypertension and normotensives, and follow-up after two years.

After an observation period of three months, 83% of new hypertensives (n = 84), identified in a population survey, became normotensive. Those with sustained hypertension (n = 14) were compared with 14 initially hypertensives who became normotensive and 14 normotensives, matched for age and sex, using ambulatory and exercise BP and echocardiography (both M-mode and Doppler). The initially hypertensive group (n = 11) was re-examined after two years follow-up. The 24h mean ambulatory and submaximal systolic exercise BP did not differ between sustained (139/92 and 210 mmHg) and initially hypertensives (143/95 and 217 mmHg), being significantly lower in the normotensive group (129/85 and 198 mmHg). Left ventricular mass did not differ between the initially hypertensive and the normotensive groups, being significantly higher in the sustained hypertensives. In both hypertensive groups, as compared with normotensives, the ratio between flow velocity in early and late diastole (E/A ratio) tended to be lower and the early diastolic deceleration time (DT) was significantly shorter. After two years, in the untreated initially hypertensives, office DBP had increased to hypertensive values, without change in ambulatory BP, left ventricular mass or early diastolic deceleration time. The E/A ratio had decreased to a level < 1. We conclude that the subjects who became normotensive after three months office BP follow-up have a BP load and signs of compromised left ventricular diastolic function similar to that of the sustained hypertensives, but without increased left ventricular mass.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Captopril compared to atenolol in mild to moderate hypertension in a randomized double-blind controlled trial.

After screening a local population in the northern part of The Netherlands for hypertension, 125 patients (116 of whom had not previously used antihypertensive drugs) with a five times elevated diastolic pressure (DP) of between 95 and 130 mmHg were randomized and treated daily either with atenolol 50 mg o.d. (n = 62) or with captopril 25 mg b.i.d. (n = 63) for 2 months under double-blind conditions. During this period the DP fell by 9 mm under atenolol (from 107 +/- 8 to 98 +/- 8) and by 8 mm under captopril (from 107 +/- 7 to 99 +/- 9). The number of responders with a DP = less than 90 mmHg was 21% and 20%, respectively. After 2 months the double-blind period was ended and the patients were submitted to a medication protocol for another 4 months in which an increased dose and additional nifedipine were given to non-responders. The response rate rose to 76% (atenolol/nifedipine combination) and to 60% (captopril/nifedipine combination) - NS. It is concluded that low doses of atenolol and captopril are equally effective in lowering blood pressure in uncomplicated mild to moderate hypertension.

Effects of atenolol, labetalol and propranolol on the peripheral circulation in hypertensive patients without obstructive vascular disease.

In an observer-blind, randomised cross-over trial, in 12 patients, the effects on the peripheral circulation of antihypertensive doses of atenolol, labetalol and propranolol and placebo were compared. After a placebo period of at least 4 weeks, patients were allocated at random to one of the three active drug treatments. After active treatment for at least 6 weeks and a fall in diastolic pressure (DP) to less than 90 mmHg subjects were switched to the next medication. At the end of each period, photo-electric plethysmography (PHELP) was done on all fingers of one hand cooled over 4 min in water in steps of 3 degrees C from 33 degrees to 12 degrees C, and subsequently warmed in room air (20 degrees C) for a period of 10 min. Blood flow changes during cooling were expressed as a percentage of the initial PHELP value (% PHELP). Areas under the curves, representing the % PHELP/cooling period and % PHELP/warming-up period, showed that within the temperature range normally encountered in daily life, labetalol preserved finger blood flow significantly better than propranolol and marginally better than placebo. With atenolol, finger blood flow was not significantly different from that during the three other regimens, but there were significantly fewer other side-effects. It is concluded that labetalol may be the drug of choice for hypertensive patients treated with beta-blocking agents whose peripheral arterial circulation seems inadequate at low temperatures.

Comparison of labetalol, propranolol and hydralazine in hypertensive out-patients.

In a randomized 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 labetalol medication. It is concluded that labetalol/hydrochlorothiazide and propranolol/hydralazine/hydrochlorothiazide are equally satisfactory in the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension.

Comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and atenolol as initial treatment in uncomplicated hypertension.

After screening a local population in the northern part of The Netherlands for hypertension, 119 patients with a diastolic pressure (DP) between 95 and 120 mmHg were randomised and treated either with 50 mg hydrochlorothiazide (n = 59) or 100 mg atenolol (n = 60). After 1 month of treatment 6 patients in the hydrochlorothiazide group and 24 patients in the atenolol group had reached a DP less than or equal to 90 mmHg (p less than 0.001). 43 of the 50 non-responders to hydrochlorothiazide were switched to atenolol and 30 of the 35 non-responders to atenolol were changed to hydrochlorothiazide. One month after the switch 19 patients in the atenolol group and 2 patients in the hydrochlorothiazide group had reached a DP less than or equal to 90 mmHg (p less than 0.001). After 6 months of treatment 32 of the 43 atenolol responders and 7 of the 8 hydrochlorothiazide responders were still receiving the same medication, as their DP was still less than or equal to 90 mmHg. Non-responders to either medication were given the combination (n = 46). 21 patients now became normotensive as did a further 10 after increasing the dose of atenolol to 200 mg. Thus, in all 70 patients had a blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mmHg after treatment for 4 months. Both drugs induced a significant reduction in the total of number of complaints after 1 month of treatment. They did not differ from each other. The reduction was seen both in responders and non-responders and persisted during treatment for 6 months. It is concluded that in terms of short-term efficacy the cardioselective, hydrophilic beta adrenoceptor-blocking drug atenolol is preferable to hydrochlorothiazide 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.

After 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. Nonresponders 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 less than or equal to 90 mmHg had been reached the patient was reassessed after a further 3 months. If a DP greater than 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.

Comparison of atenolol 50 mg and 100 mg as initial treatment in uncomplicated mild to moderate hypertension.

After 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.

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.