Sexual quality of life after the treatment of gynecologic cancer: what women want.

PURPOSE: While the incidence of sexual dysfunction after treatment for gynecologic malignancies is well documented, few studies describe how patients want healthcare providers to address these concerns. The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in sexual function and describe patient preferences regarding healthcare provider roles in addressing and treating sexual dysfunction in gynecologic cancer survivors. METHODS: Patients undergoing gynecologic cancer treatment from 2013 to 2014 at a single University-based Gynecologic Cancer clinic were surveyed using a modified Changes in Sexual Function Questionnaire (CSFQ), along with questions relating to healthcare provider interactions and preferences. RESULTS: Among 277 eligible patients approached to participate, 85 (30.7%) completed the survey. The mean age was 52.2 ± 12.3 years; most were non-Hispanic White (78.8%), partnered (73.2%), had endometrial or ovarian cancer (30.6% and 44.7%, respectively), and were in surveillance (57.3%). Most women (64.7%) reported much or great sexual enjoyment 1 year prior to cancer treatment which decreased to 27.4% currently; 33.3% report only rare sexual activity. There were no statistically significant differences in mean total CSFQ scores by treatment modality. A minority wanted healthcare providers to initiate sexual health discussions (25.3%); the remaining reported not wanting sexual health addressed or preferred raising the issue themselves. The most commonly cited barrier to communication was the feeling that there are more important issues to discuss with their oncology providers (46.2%). CONCLUSIONS: While gynecologic cancer patients report changes in sexual function following cancer therapy, many believe there are other issues more paramount to be addressed. Further studies are warranted to develop better strategies for addressing sexual health in women receiving treatment for gynecologic cancers.

Prevalence and prognostic implications of electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy in heart failure: evidence from the CHARM programme.

BACKGROUND: Electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (ECG LVH) is a powerful independent predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To determine the contemporary prevalence and prognostic implications of ECG LVH in a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure with and without reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND OUTCOME: The Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme randomised 7599 patients with symptomatic heart failure to receive candesartan or placebo. The primary outcome comprised cardiovascular death or hospital admission for worsening heart failure. The relative risk (RR) conveyed by ECG LVH compared with a normal ECG was examined in a Cox model, adjusting for as many as 31 covariates of prognostic importance. RESULTS: The prevalence of ECG LVH was similar in all three CHARM trials (Alternative, 15.4%; Added, 17.1%; Preserved, 14.7%; Overall, 15.7%) despite a more frequent history of hypertension in CHARM-Preserved. ECG LVH was an independent predictor of worse prognosis in CHARM-Overall. RR for the primary outcome was 1.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.55, p = 0.018). The risk of secondary end points was also increased: cardiovascular death, 1.50 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.99, p = 0.005); hospitalisation due to heart failure, 1.19 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.50, p = 0.148); and composite major cardiovascular events, 1.35 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.62, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: ECG LVH is similarly prevalent in patients with symptomatic heart failure regardless of LVEF. The simple clinical finding of ECG LVH was an independent predictor of a worse clinical outcome in a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure receiving extensive contemporary treatment. Candesartan had similar benefits in patients with and without ECG LVH.

A forced titration study of antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan cilexetil in comparison to losartan: CLAIM Study II.

An 8-week, multicentre (72 sites in the US), double-blind, randomised, parallel group, forced titration study compared the antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan cilexetil and losartan. A total of 611 patients with essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95 to 114 mm Hg) were randomised initially to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily or losartan 50 mg once daily. After 2 weeks of randomised treatment, the doses of candesartan cilexetil and losartan were doubled to 32 mg and 100 mg once daily and continued respectively for 6 weeks. At week 8, candesartan cilexetil lowered the blood pressure (BP) at 24 h (trough), 6 h (peak) and 48 h post dose to a significantly greater extent (P < 0.05) than losartan: candesartan cilexetil lowered trough BP by 13.4/10.5 mm Hg, peak BP by 15.5/12.9 mm Hg and 48-h BP by 10.5/9.9 mm Hg compared to a reduction of trough BP by 10.1/9.1 mm Hg, peak BP by 12.0/9.5 mm Hg, and 48-h BP by 5.9/7.0 mm Hg by losartan. The responder and control rates were numerically higher in the candesartan cilexetil group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance; the responder rates were 58.8% for the candesartan cilexetil group and 52.1% for the losartan group and control rates were 49.0% for the candesartan cilexetil group and 44.6% for the losartan group. Overall, both treatment regimens were well tolerated. A total of 15 of the 611 (2.5%) patients withdrew from the study due to an adverse event, including nine (2.9%) in the candesartan cilexetil group and six (2.0%) in the losartan group. In conclusion, this forced titration study confirms that candesartan cilexetil is more effective in lowering BP than losartan when compared at once daily maximum doses.

Antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan in comparison to losartan: the CLAIM study.

An 8-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, forced-titration study was conducted to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan vs. losartan in 654 hypertensive patients with a diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 114 mm Hg from 72 sites throughout the U.S. Eligible patients were randomized to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily, or losartan 50 mg once daily. Two weeks following randomization, patients doubled the respective doses of their angiotensin receptor blockers for an additional 6 weeks. At week 8, candesartan cilexetil lowered trough systolic/diastolic blood pressure by a significantly greater amount than did losartan (13.3/10.9 mm Hg with candesartan cilexetil vs. 9.8/8.7 mm Hg with losartan; p less than 0.001). At the same period, candesartan cilexetil also lowered peak blood pressure by a significantly greater amount than did losartan (15.2 to 11.6 mm Hg with candesartan cilexetil vs. 12.6 to 10.1 mm Hg with losartan; p less than 0.05). There were statistically significantly (p less than 0.05) higher proportions of responders and controlled patients in the candesartan cilexetil group (62.4% and 56.0%, respectively) than in the losartan group (54.0% and 46.9%, respectively). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated; 1.8% in the candesartan cilexetil group and 1.6% in the losartan group withdrew because of adverse events. In conclusion, this forced-titration study confirms that candesartan cilexetil is more effective than losartan in lowering blood pressure when both are administered once daily at maximum doses. Both drugs were well tolerated. (c)2001 by Le Jacq.

Efficacy of candesartan cilexetil as add-on therapy in hypertensive patients uncontrolled on background therapy: a clinical experience trial. ACTION Study Investigators.

A large-scale, 8-week, open-label, clinical experience trial evaluated the efficacy of the angiotensin II receptor (AT1 subtype) blocker candesartan cilexetil (16 to 32 mg once daily) either alone or as add-on therapy in 6465 hypertensive patients. The study population was 52% female and 16% African American with a mean age of 58 years. It included 5,446 patients who had essential hypertension (HBP) and 1,014 patients who had isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). These patients had either untreated or uncontrolled hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] 140 to 179 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 90 to 109 mm Hg inclusive at baseline) despite a variety of antihypertensive medications including diuretics, calcium antagonists, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and alpha- or beta-blockers, either singly or in combination. The mean baseline blood pressure for the HBP group was 156/97 mm Hg. Candesartan cilexetil as monotherapy (in 51% of HBP patients) reduced mean SBP/DBP by 18.7/ 13.1 mm Hg. As add-on therapy (in 49% of HBP patients) to various background therapies, candesartan cilexetil consistently reduced mean SBP/DBP further, irrespective of the background therapy: diuretics (17.8/11.3 mm Hg), calcium antagonists (16.6/11.2 mm Hg), beta-blockers (16.5/ 10.4 mm Hg), ACE inhibitors (15.3/10.0 mm Hg), alpha-blockers (16.4/10.4 mm Hg). The mean baseline blood pressure for the ISH group was 158/81 mm Hg. Candesartan cilexetil, as monotherapy (in 34% of ISH patients), reduced SBP/DBP by 17.0/4.4 mm Hg. As add-on therapy (in 66% of ISH patients) to various background therapies, candesartan cilexetil consistently reduced mean SBP/DBP further, irrespective of the background therapy: diuretics (17.4/5.1 mm Hg), calcium antagonists (15.6/3.6 mm Hg), beta-blockers (14.0/4.8 mm Hg), ACE inhibitors (13.4/4.3 mm Hg), and alpha-blockers (11.6/4.5 mm Hg). The further blood pressure lowering effects of candesartan cilexetil as add-on therapy were seen regardless of age, sex, and race. Overall, 6.8% of the 6465 patients withdrew because of adverse events, most commonly headache (6.3%) and dizziness (5.0%). Orthostatic hypotension was infrequent; 0.2% with candesartan cilexetil alone, and 0.8% with candesartan cilexetil as add-on therapy. Thus, candesartan cilexetil either alone or as add-on therapy was highly effective for the control of systolic or diastolic hypertension regardless of demographic background when used in typical clinical practice settings.

Comparative effects of candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine in patients with mild systemic hypertension. Comparison of Candesartan and Amlodipine for Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy (CASTLE) Study Investigators.

The comparative antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of the angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine were evaluated in an 8-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, forced-titration study in 251 adult patients (45% women, 16% black) with mild hypertension (stage 1). Following a 4- to 5-week placebo run-in period, patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 90 to 99 mm Hg received candesartan cilexetil 16 mg (n = 123) or amlodipine 5 mg (n = 128) once daily. After 4 weeks of double-blind treatment, patients were uptitrated to candesartan cilexetil 32 mg or amlodipine 10 mg once daily. There were no significant differences between the candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine regimens for reducing BP; mean systolic BP/diastolic BP reductions were -15.2/-10.2 mm Hg versus -15.4/-11.3 mm Hg, respectively (p = 0.88/0.25). Overall, 79% of patients on candesartan cilexetil and 87% of those on amlodipine were controlled (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg). A total of 3.3% of patients on candesartan cilexetil discontinued treatment, compared with 9.4% of patients on amlodipine, including 2.4% versus 4.7% for adverse events and 0% versus 1.6% for peripheral edema, respectively. Peripheral edema, the prespecified primary tolerability end point, occurred with significantly greater frequency in patients on amlodipine (22.1%; mild 8.7%, moderate 11.8%, severe 1.6%) versus patients on candesartan cilexetil (8.9%; mild 8.1%, moderate 0.8%) (p = 0.005). Candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine are both highly effective in controlling BP in patients with mild hypertension. Candesartan cilexetil offers a significant tolerability advantage with respect to less risk of developing peripheral edema.

Randomized trial of candesartan cilexetil in the treatment of patients with congestive heart failure and a history of intolerance to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with congestive heart failure do not receive the benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors because of intolerance. We sought to determine the tolerability of an angiotensin II receptor blocker, candesartan cilexetil, among patients considered intolerant of ACE inhibitors. METHODS: Patients with CHF, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 35%, and history of discontinuing an ACE inhibitor because of intolerance underwent double-blind randomization in a 2:1 ratio to receive candesartan (n = 179) or a placebo (n = 91). The initial dosage of candesartan was 4 mg/d; the dosage was increased to 16 mg/d if the drug was tolerated. A history of intolerance of ACE inhibitor was attributed to cough (67% of patients), hypotension (15%), or renal dysfunction (11%). RESULTS: The study drug was continued for 12 weeks by 82.7% of patients who received candesartan versus 86.8% of patients who received the placebo. This 4.1% greater discontinuation rate with active therapy was not significant; the 95% confidence interval ranged from 4.8% more discontinuation with placebo to 13% more with candesartan. Titration to the 16-mg target dose was possible for 69% of patients who received candesartan versus 84% of those who received the placebo. Frequencies of death and morbidity were not significantly different between the candesartan and placebo groups (death 3.4% and 3.3%, worsening heart failure 8.4% and 13.2%, myocardial infarction 2.8% and 5.5%, all-cause hospitalization 12.8% and 18.7%, and death or hospitalization for heart failure 11.7% and 14.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan was well tolerated by this population. The effect of candesartan on major clinical end points, including death, remains to be determined.

Effects of candesartan cilexetil on health-related quality of life in black patients with systemic hypertension in the ABC Trial.

Tolerability is an important consideration in evaluating a new antihypertensive agent. This can be assessed informally by conventional patient interviews or more formally with the use of validated health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures assessing the patient's perception of the agent's tolerability. HRQL was a secondary end point of a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil in black patients with systemic hypertension. HRQL was evaluated using the generic Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) and population- and condition-specific Vital Signs Quality of Life Questionnaire (VSQLQ). Data were gathered via face-to-face interviews at screening, baseline, and weeks 8 and 12. Of the 304 patients randomized, 268 were evaluable for the HRQL analysis. Clinical results, reported in the companion article, found that candesartan cilexetil initiated at 16 mg once daily and titrated to 32 mg once daily as needed, with the subsequent addition of hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg as needed, was effective for lowering diastolic and systolic blood pressure and was well tolerated based on office interviews. Analyses of patients' perceptions of tolerability found that HRQL was maintained during the 12-week study period, with no significant differences between treatment and placebo groups at the end of double-blind treatment. These results indicate that the HRQL of black patients with systemic hypertension is maintained during treatment with candesartan cilexetil.

Effects of candesartan cilexetil in patients with severe systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators.

The efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the potent angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil were evaluated in 217 adult patients (68% men, 41% black) with severe systemic hypertension on background therapy with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in a 4-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) > or =110 mm Hg during the placebo run-in received HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily for 1 week. Those with sitting diastolic BP >95 mm Hg after the HCTZ run-in were randomized (2:1) to receive candesartan cilexetil 8 mg once daily (n = 141) or placebo (n = 76), plus HCTZ 12.5 mg. After 1 week of double-blind treatment, patients with sitting diastolic BP > or =90 mm Hg were uptitrated to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily or matching placebo, plus HCTZ 12.5 mg; 84% required uptitration. Primary efficacy measurement was a change in trough (24+/-3 hours after treatment) sitting diastolic BP from the end of the HCTZ run-in to double-blind week 4. Mean changes in systolic and diastolic BP were significantly greater with candesartan cilexetil than with placebo, -11.3/-9.1 mm Hg versus -4.1/-3.1 mm Hg, p <0.001/p <0.001, respectively. Patients with higher sitting diastolic BP at the end of the HCTZ run-in tended to have greater decreases in BP (p <0.05). Most patients (53%) receiving candesartan cilexetil were responders (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg or > or =10 mm Hg decrease) and 32% were controlled (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg). Tolerability and safety profiles were similar in the candesartan and placebo groups. In conclusion, candesartan cilexetil 8 to 16 mg once daily was an effective and well-tolerated therapy for lowering BP when added to HCTZ 12.5 mg in a diverse population of patients with severe systemic hypertension in the United States.

Contemporary management of patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Results from the Study of Patients Intolerant of Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (SPICE) Registry.

AIMS: The reported prevalence of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor use in patients with heart failure varies considerably. Recent reports suggest that many patients who could benefit from such therapy are not receiving ACE inhibitors. The Study of Patients Intolerant of Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (SPICE) Registry was established to understand better the demographics, characteristics, and contemporary use of ACE inhibitors in an international registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between August 1996 and April 1997, each of 105 study centres from eight countries in North America and Europe was invited to review retrospectively the medical records of 100 consecutive patients with left ventricular ejection fractions

Candesartan cilexetil: comparison of once-daily versus twice-daily administration for systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators.

This randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, forced-titration, parallel-arm study was designed to compare the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect of candesartan cilexetil, a potent antagonist of the angiotensin II receptor subtype AT1, administered once daily with that of the same agent administered twice daily at the same total daily dose of 16 mg. After a 4- to 5-week placebo run-in period, 277 patients with a sitting diastolic BP of 95 to 109 mm Hg were randomly allocated to receive placebo (n = 92) or candesartan cilexetil 8 mg once daily for 4 weeks, followed by forced titration to either 16 mg once daily (n = 91) or 8 mg twice daily (n = 94) for 4 weeks. At 8 weeks, mean reductions in trough sitting diastolic BP were similar for the once- and twice-daily treatment groups (9.4 and 10.3 mm Hg, respectively). After 8 weeks of treatment, no statistically significant differences were observed in diastolic or systolic BP, peak or trough BP, or sitting or standing BP between the 2 active-treatment groups. The rates of positive responses (defined as a trough sitting diastolic BP of <90 mm Hg or a decrease in BP of > or =10 mm Hg) were also similar (approximately 60%) in the once- and twice-daily candesartan cilexetil groups. Furthermore, placebo-corrected trough-to-peak ratios for sitting diastolic BP exceeded 75% for both candesartan cilexetil regimens, indicating a persistent 24-hour duration of drug effect. Ambulatory BP monitoring performed in a subset of patients (n = 44) confirmed the consistent 24-hour BP-lowering effect and preservation of diurnal variation with once-daily dosing. No significant between-group differences were observed in the incidence or severity of clinical or laboratory adverse events. The results of this study suggest that identical daily doses of candesartan cilexetil administered once or twice daily have comparable efficacy and tolerability and that no additional clinical benefit is derived from twice-daily administration.

Effective dose range of candesartan cilexetil for systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators.

The results of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, forced-dose titration study in a diverse population of hypertensive patients in the US indicate that candesartan cilexetil has clinically meaningful dose-related blood pressure-lowering effects and that maximum blood pressure reduction is achieved with doses of 16 and 32 mg given once daily. This study confirms that candesartan cilexetil is a highly effective antihypertensive agent with an excellent tolerability and safety profile, without dose-related adverse effects.

Comparative effects of candesartan cilexetil and losartan in patients with systemic hypertension. Candesartan Versus Losartan Efficacy Comparison (CANDLE) Study Group.

The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of the novel angiotensin-II (A-II) receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil and the prototype A-II receptor blocker, losartan, were compared in an 8-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, titration-to-effect study of 332 adults (42% women, 12% black) with systemic hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 95-114 mmHg, inclusive). In patients with a mean trough (24 +/- 3 hours after dose) sitting DBP of 90 mmHg or higher after 4 weeks of once daily administration of candesartan 16 mg or losartan 50 mg, dose was titrated up to candesartan 32 mg or losartan 100 mg once daily. The candesartan regimen was significantly more effective than the losartan regimen in reducing trough sitting DBP at week 8 (11.0 mmHg versus 8.9 mmHg). Candesartan also produced numerically greater reductions in secondary blood pressure parameters, including sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP), trough standing DBP and SBP, and peak (6 +/- 2.5 hours after dose) sitting and standing DBP and SBP. Responder rates (sitting DBP < 90 mmHg or reduction in blood pressure of > or = 10 mmHg) and control rates (sitting DBP <90 mmHg) were higher with candesartan (64% versus 54% and 54% versus 43%, respectively). A total of 1.9% of the patients taking candesartan and 6.5% of those taking losartan discontinued prematurely because of adverse events or lack of efficacy.

Effects of candesartan cilexetil in patients with systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators.

The objectives of this double-blind, multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled study were to evaluate the dose-related efficacy, tolerability, and safety of candesartan cilexetil, a potent, AT1 selective, long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker, in 365 adult patients with systemic hypertension and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 95 to 114 mm Hg. Patients received either placebo or candesartan cilexetil 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32 mg once daily for 8 weeks. All doses of candesartan cilexetil reduced trough (24 hours after treatment) sitting diastolic and systolic BP significantly compared with placebo (p < 0.005). A significant (p < or = 0.0001) dose response was evident, with greater decreases in BP at higher doses. Mean changes in BP were -10.7/-7.8 mm Hg and -12.6/-10.2 mm Hg in the 16- and 32-mg groups, respectively, versus -0.3/-2.6 mm Hg in the placebo group. The 16- and 32-mg doses were consistently significantly superior to placebo in antihypertensive effect with regard to all BP measurements, including peak (6 hours after treatment), trough, sitting, and standing measurements of diastolic and systolic BP. Responder rates (trough sitting diastolic BP < 90 or > or = 10 mm Hg BP decrease) were 54% and 64% for the 16- and 32-mg groups, respectively. Tolerability and safety profiles were similar to placebo at all doses. In conclusion, candesartan cilexetil administered once daily effectively reduces BP in a dose-related manner while maintaining safety and tolerability; doses of 16 and 32 mg are most effective for treatment of hypertension.

Long-term efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the combination of enalapril and felodipine ER in the treatment of hypertension. Enalapril-Felodipine ER Factorial Study Group.

A recent 8-week, double-masked, placebo-controlled, 3 x 4 factorial-design study demonstrated that enalapril-felodipine extended-release (ER) combinations had statistically significant additive effects for reducing both sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) and sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) and were generally well tolerated in hypertensive patients with SiDBPs ranging from 95 to 115 mm Hg. The present open-label study was undertaken to assess the long-term efficacy, tolerability, and safety of such combinations. Patients from the factorial study were eligible for the 1-year, open-label extension. Initially, all patients received enalapril 5 mg-felodipine ER 2.5 mg once daily; if SiDBP was not controlled (< 90 mm Hg) after 4 weeks of treatment, the dose was titrated upward at 2- to 4-week intervals to a maximum of enalapril 10 mg-felodipine ER 10 mg. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg was added to the regimen of patients whose hypertension was not controlled at the highest enalapril-felodipine ER dose. A total of 507 patients were enrolled, of whom 502 were assessable. At their last study visit, 391 (78%) of the assessable patients were receiving only an enalapril-felodipine ER combination. The enalapril-felodipine ER combinations resulted in mean trough SiDBPs of 85 to 89 mm Hg (decreases of 13 to 16 mm Hg from baseline) and SiSBPs of 137 to 140 mm Hg (decreases of 13 to 21 mm Hg). Overall, 407 (81%) of the 502 assessable patients achieved an SiDBP < 90 mm Hg or a reduction from baseline > or = 10 mm Hg (responders); such a response was recorded in 331 patients (66%) taking a combination of enalapril-felodipine ER alone and 76 patients (15%) taking the combination with the addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg. Blood pressure reductions were maintained throughout the treatment period. Drug-related adverse events were relatively infrequent, often transient, usually mild, and apparently not dose related. The most frequently reported drug-related adverse events were edema/swelling, asthenia/fatigue, dizziness, cough, and headache. These results suggest that combination therapy with enalapril-felodipine ER is effective for long-term blood pressure reduction, has an excellent safety profile, and is generally well tolerated. Addition of low-dose HCTZ to the enalapril-felodipine ER combination appears to provide further blood pressure control without increasing drug-related adverse events.

Early repolarization: normalization of the electrocardiogram with exercise as a clinically useful diagnostic feature.

BACKGROUND: Early repolarization is a normal ECG variant which may resemble various pathologic conditions including acute myocardial infarction/injury and pericarditis. Some electrocardiographers believe early repolarization resolves with exercise-induced increases in heart rate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate qualitatively and quantitatively this phenomenon. METHODS: From among 3,000 consecutive patients referred for evaluation of ischemic heart disease by exercise treadmill testing, 25 patients with early repolarization and no risk factors for cardiovascular disease (Group I), 28 patients with early repolarization and risk factors for cardiovascular disease (Group IIA), and 28 matched control patients (Group IIB) were identified and evaluated retrospectively. Group II patients also underwent radionuclide stress imaging. All study patients had otherwise normal ECGs and a negative history of cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: In patients with early repolarization, diagnostic ST elevation was most frequently evident in ECG lead V4. We found that the ECG normalized progressively, beginning almost immediately with the onset of exercise, and typically returned completely to the isoelectric baseline at an average heart rate of approximately 106 beats per minute. In patients with otherwise normal ECGs and no history of cardiovascular disease, early repolarization was a strong predictor of a negative exercise treadmill test and only infrequently was associated with a positive radionuclide imaging study. Early repolarization was found in virtually all demographic groups with respect to age, race, and gender except for a disproportionate infrequency in white females. CONCLUSION: A progressive decrease in ST segment elevation and normalization of the ECG with mild exercise was a predictable response in patients who have early repolarization with otherwise normal ECGs and no history of cardiovascular disease. This phenomenon may be clinically useful as a bedside diagnostic tool in evaluating patients who present with early repolarization, otherwise normal ECGs, and negative cardiac history, in which the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction/injury or pericarditis is being considered. These findings warrant formal evaluation in a prospective clinical trial.