An open comparative clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of losartan versus enalapril in mild to moderate hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of losartan with enalapril, in mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: An open, enalapril controlled study was conducted in 30 patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Losartan 50 mg was administered to patients for eights weeks. Throughout the study blood pressure was measured every two weeks. Routine laboratory investigations were performed before entering the trial, fourth week and at the end of the study. Adverse effects were recorded. After eight weeks losartan was stopped and enalapril 10 mg daily was administered to the same patients after two weeks washout period. The same methodology that was followed for losartan trial was repeated for enalapril trial also. RESULTS: Losartan treatment resulted in a highly significant reduction in the mean sitting diastolic blood pressure. Comparison with enalapril showed that both drugs are equally efficacious in reducing blood pressure in mild to moderate hypertension. The percentage of responders was slightly more with losartan than enalapril (86.7% vs 76.7%). Adverse events reported with losartan were mild. Enalapril also was well tolerated like losartan but there was high incidence of dry cough, which was reported in nine patients (30%). CONCLUSIONS: Losartan is an effective antihypertensive drug with an excellent safety and tolerability profile. It shows similar blood pressure lowering efficacy to that of enalapril. In contrast to enalapril, losartan does not cause dry cough.

Haemorrhagic pneumonitis: A rare presentation of leptospirosis.

Leptospirosis is an uncommon zoonosis. As a systemic disease, it presents itself by multisystem involvement. Pulmonary involvement with leptospirosis often is manifested by respiratory symptoms; but pneumonia commonly is not a prominent clinical manifestation of the illness. We report a case of leptospiral pneumonia in which pulmonary manifestations were primary clinical features of the illness. The prompt resolution of chest x-ray on institution of treatment is noteworthy.

Changing profile of diabetic ketosis.

Forty-three cases of diabetic ketosis were analysed to determine the mode of presentation, treatment modalities and outcome. Among these cases 62.8% were non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) patients and 37.2% belonged to the insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) group. Six patients had blood glucose levels of more than 250 mg/dl but less than 300 mg/dl who were grouped separately for analysis under the term "euglycaemic diabetic ketoacidosis (EGDK)". Infection was the commonest precipitating factor in diabetic ketosis in all groups. Abdominal pain and vomiting occurred with NIDDM and EGDK cases. Drowsiness was common and coma was rare. Acute myocardial infarction (MI) and pulmonary oedema occurred with NIDDM cases. Shock, acidosis, acquired respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and mucor mycosis were seen with IDDM cases. Mortality was 7 out of 43(16.3%). Saline requirement was lower in NIDDM and EGDK cases. Intensive insulin therapy with hourly intravenous doses were needed for IDDM cases while majority of NIDDM cases could be managed with 6 hourly doses of insulin given subcutaneously or intramuscularly.