Effects of atenolol withdrawal in patients on triple antihypertensive therapy.

The objective of this study was to examine the contribution of beta-blockade to antihypertensive treatment regimens including an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or a calcium antagonist. The effects on BP control, adverse events, and plasma active renin concentration of removing atenolol from standard triple therapy (bendrofluazide and atenolol together with captopril or nifedipine) were assessed in a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study, of eight weeks' duration in 46 patients from the Glasgow Blood Pressure Clinic. Blood pressures rose in patients randomised to placebo-atenolol compared with those who continued active-atenolol although the difference did not achieve statistical significance. However, the proportion of patients with controlled blood pressure (supine systolic BP < 140 mmHg plus supine diastolic BP < 95 mmHg) fell from 31% to 0% over the study period in patients given placebo-atenolol. There was a trend for BP control to deteriorate most when atenolol was withdrawn from nifedipine treated patients, but the 95% confidence intervals for the difference from captopril-treated patients were wide. Few side-effects were seen and these did not differ quantitatively between the study groups. Plasma active renin concentration was initially higher in captopril-treated patients, and increased on withdrawal of atenolol in both groups. Our findings suggest that beta-blockers make a clinically relevant contribution to treatment regimens including angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or calcium antagonists when given as part of standard triple antihypertensive therapy.

Comparison of captopril, hydralazine and nifedipine as third drug in hypertensive patients.

The antihypertensive, biochemical and adverse effects of captopril, hydralazine, nifedipine and placebo were compared in 160 patients with BP inadequately controlled by atenolol 100 mg daily plus bendrofluazide 5 mg daily. Treatments were given for up to 12 weeks. Beta-blocker and thiazide were continued unchanged. All three active drugs reduced supine BP relative to placebo; mean BP changes attributable to active treatment (95% confidence intervals): captopril 13.4/10.3 mmHg (0.6/4.0 to 26.2/16.6), hydralazine 15.0/10.0 mmHg (1.7/3.4 to 28.3/16.6), nifedipine 16.8/8.1 mmHg (4.0/1.8 to 29.6/14.4). There were no significant differences between the agents. Results for erect BP were similar. Target BP (< 140/95 mmHg) was achieved more frequently on captopril (33%), hydralazine (29%) and nifedipine (17%) than on placebo (10%). Compared with the other treatments captopril increased serum potassium concentration (P = 0.01), and hydralazine reduced serum cholesterol concentration (median changes: captopril -0.2 mmol/l, hydralazine -0.8 mmol/l, nifedipine -0.2 mmol/l, and placebo +0.2 mmol/l, P < 0.001). Overall, side-effects did not differ significantly between the groups; withdrawals resulting from adverse reactions: captopril 15%, hydralazine 24%, nifedipine 22%, and placebo 3% (chi 2 = 8.2, P = 0.04). Captopril, hydralazine and nifedipine did not differ significantly in efficacy and tolerability when added to atenolol and bendrofluazide. However, there were trends in favour of captopril, on which drug the highest proportion of patients had their BP controlled and the lowest proportion were withdrawn because of side-effects. Thus, of the drugs tested, captopril appears to be the best option as third drug in hypertension.

Twenty-four-hour blood pressure in junior medical staff.

Circadian variations in blood pressure in junior medical staff were compared during routine working days and days receiving medical emergencies. The overnight work commitment of junior medical staff when receiving medical emergencies causes a loss in the normal circadian blood pressure rhythm, with overnight blood pressure falling 10/11 mmHg less than on routine working days. This supports the hypothesis that circadian blood-pressure changes are activity related rather than dependent upon hormonal variation. Long-term health effects of abolishing such normal circadian rhythms are not known.

Comparison of enalapril and atenolol in mild to moderate hypertension.

PURPOSE: Short-term therapy with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for hypertension is effective and well tolerated, and compared with beta blockers, may cause fewer adverse reactions. Furthermore, enalapril has been observed to have a greater effect on systolic blood pressure than beta blockers. We therefore decided to compare the ACE inhibitor enalapril and the beta blocker atenolol as monotherapy in a double-blind study of patients with mild to moderate hypertension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After a four-week placebo run-in period, 162 patients were allocated randomly to receive atenolol (50 to 100 mg daily) or enalapril (20 to 40 mg daily) for 12 weeks. To assess the influence of these drugs on quality of life, a series of psychologic tests was performed, and a subset of patients also underwent treadmill exercise and pulmonary function tests. RESULTS: In 147 patients who completed the study, enalapril reduced supine blood pressure by 19/12 mm Hg, compared with 9/7 mm Hg for atenolol (p less than 0.001/p less than 0.005). The modest blood pressure response to atenolol was not due to poor compliance. A target blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or less was achieved by 35 percent of enalapril-treated atenolol (p less than 0.01). The frequency and severity of adverse effects with the two drugs were similar, and few important differences emerged from the quality-of-life assessments. CONCLUSION: At the doses used, enalapril induced a greater short-term blood pressure response than atenolol; long-term studies of its safety and efficacy are required.

Correcting for the bias caused by drop-outs in hypertension trials.

A major source of bias in hypertension trials can arise from patients who are withdrawn during the course of the trial because of inadequate blood pressure control. We develop a mechanism which allows for such withdrawals while preserving the potential to make an unbiased comparison of the treatment effects. The approach is illustrated using data from a large multicentre trial of two anti-hypertensive agents in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.