Double-blind comparison of indapamide with a placebo in hypertensive patients treated by practicing physicians.

The antihypertensive effect of indapamide (2.5 mg/day) was compared to that obtained with a placebo in a controlled trial carried out by 11 physicians in their private practice. Thirty-one patients with uncomplicated essential hypertension were included. After a run-in period of 3 weeks without any treatment, either indapamide (n = 16) or a placebo (n = 15) were administered for 8 weeks in double-blind fashion. Blood pressure decreased in both groups. In patients treated with indapamide, systolic pressure was significantly lower than in those given the placebo at 3 out of the 4 follow-up visits; diastolic pressure, however, was significantly lower only at the end of the trial. Both the active drug and the placebo were well tolerated. No significant change in body weight, plasma potassium and uric acid occurred during the study in either group of patients. It appears therefore that indapamide, at a dose which apparently has no major diuretic effect, may be useful for practitioners in managing patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

Reactive rise in blood pressure upon cuff inflation: cuff inflation at the arm causes a greater rise in pressure than at the wrist in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: Cuff inflation at the arm is known to cause an instantaneous rise in blood pressure, which might be due to the discomfort of the procedure and might interfere with the precision of the blood pressure measurement. In this study, we compared the reactive rise in blood pressure induced by cuff inflation when the cuff was placed at the upper arm level and at the wrist. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: The reactive rise in systolic and diastolic blood pressure to cuff inflation was measured in 34 normotensive participants and 34 hypertensive patients. Each participant was equipped with two cuffs, one around the right upper arm (OMRON HEM-CR19, 22-32 cm) and one around the right wrist (OMRON HEM-CS 19, 17-22 cm; Omron Health Care Europe BV, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands). The cuffs were inflated in a double random order (maximal cuff pressure and position of the cuff) with two maximal cuff pressures: 180 and 240 mmHg. The cuffs were linked to an oscillometric device (OMRON HEM 907; Omron Health Care). Simultaneously, blood pressure was measured continuously at the middle finger of the left hand using photoplethysmography. Three measurements were made at each level of blood pressure at the arm and at the wrist, and the sequence of measurements was randomized. RESULTS: In normotensive participants, no significant difference was observed in the reactive rise in blood pressure when the cuff was inflated either at the arm or at the wrist irrespective of the level of cuff inflation. Inflating a cuff at the arm, however, induced a significantly greater rise in blood pressure than inflating it at the wrist in hypertensive participants for both systolic and diastolic pressures (P<0.01), and at both levels of cuff inflation. The blood pressure response to cuff inflation was independent of baseline blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that in hypertensive patients, cuff inflation at the wrist produces a smaller reactive rise in blood pressure. The difference between the arm and the wrist is independent of the patient's level of blood pressure.

Amlodipine and valsartan as components of a rational and effective fixed-dose combination.

Pharmacological treatment of hypertension is effective in preventing cardiovascular and renal complications. Calcium antagonists and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system are widely used today to initiate antihypertensive therapy but, when given as monotherapy, do not suffice in most patients to normalize blood pressure. Combining the two types of agents considerably increases the antihypertensive efficacy, but not at the expense of a deterioration of tolerability. This is exemplified by the experience accumulated with the recently developed fixed dose combination containing the AT(1)-receptor blocker valsartan (160 mg) and the dihydropyridine amlodipine (5 or 10 mg). In a randomized trial, an 8-week treatment normalized blood pressure (<140/90 mmHg) within 8 weeks in a large fraction of hypertensive patients (78.4% and 85.2% using the 5/160 [n = 371] and 10/160 mg [n = 377] dosage, respectively). Like all AT(1)-receptor blockers valsartan has a placebo-like tolerability. Valsartan prevents to a large extent the occurrence amlodipine-induced peripheral edema. Both amlodipine and valsartan have beneficial effects on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, as well as protective effects on renal function. The co-administration of these two agents is therefore very attractive, as it enables a rapid and sustained blood pressure control in hypertensive patients. The availability of a fixed-dose combination based on amlodipine and valsartan is expected therefore to facilitate the management of hypertension, to improve long-term adherence with antihypertensive therapy and, ultimately, to have a positive impact on cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

Treatment intensification and risk factor control: toward more clinically relevant quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Intensification of pharmacotherapy in persons with poorly controlled chronic conditions has been proposed as a clinically meaningful process measure of quality. OBJECTIVE: To validate measures of treatment intensification by evaluating their associations with subsequent control in hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus across 35 medical facility populations in Kaiser Permanente, Northern California. DESIGN: Hierarchical analyses of associations of improvements in facility-level treatment intensification rates from 2001 to 2003 with patient-level risk factor levels at the end of 2003. PATIENTS: Members (515,072 and 626,130; age >20 years) with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or diabetes mellitus in 2001 and 2003, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment intensification for each risk factor defined as an increase in number of drug classes prescribed, of dosage for at least 1 drug, or switching to a drug from another class within 3 months of observed poor risk factor control. RESULTS: Facility-level improvements in treatment intensification rates between 2001 and 2003 were strongly associated with greater likelihood of being in control at the end of 2003 (P < or = 0.05 for each risk factor) after adjustment for patient- and facility-level covariates. Compared with facility rankings based solely on control, addition of percentages of poorly controlled patients who received treatment intensification changed 2003 rankings substantially: 14%, 51%, and 29% of the facilities changed ranks by 5 or more positions for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment intensification is tightly linked to improved control. Thus, it deserves consideration as a process measure for motivating quality improvement and possibly for measuring clinical performance.

Antihypertensive Combination Treatment: State of the Art.

An adequate control of blood pressure is essential to reduce the risk of target organ damages and cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension. Yet, it is well recognized that a substantial proportion of treated patients remain hypertensive despite treatment. Several reasons have been evoked to explain why so many patients are not adequately controlled. Among them, medical inertia, a poor long-term adherence, and the need to prescribe several antihypertensive drugs to reach the target blood pressure have been identified as major limitations to the success of antihypertensive therapy. In this context, the use of single-pill combinations (SPC) containing two or three drugs in one pill has an important role in reducing the impact of some of these issues. Indeed, the use of SPC enables to reduce the pill burden and to improve the treatment efficacy without increasing the incidence of side effects. However, besides their major advantages, SPC have also some limitations such as a possible lack of flexibility or a higher cost. The purpose of this review is to discuss the place of SPC in the actual management of hypertension. The active development of new single-pill combinations in last years can be considered as a significant improvement in the physicians' capacity to treat hypertension effectively.

Efeito de drogas utilizadas no tratamento de hipertensão arterial sistêmica sobre a pressão intra-ocular: Estudo experimental no cão

Purpose: To study the effects of two drugs (captopril and propranolol) used in the treatment of systemic hypertension, on the intraocular pressure (IOP) of anesthetized dogs. Methods: 24 dogs, divided into 3 groups of 8 each. In the first group, 1.5 mg/kg IV of captopril (an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor) was administered. In the second group, 1.5 mg/kg IV of propranolol (a beta-blocker) was administered. The third group was the control. IOP and blood pressure (BP) were measured by manometry. The perfusion pressure was calculated by the difference between BP and IOP (BP-IOP). The parameters were studied at 6 moments (0, 10, 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes). Results: There was significant reduction of IOP (p<0.05) with captopril and propranolol, without difference between the drugs. With captopril the BP and PP decreased markedly at 10 and 30 minutes. With propranolol there was no reduction of BP or PP. Conclusions: Captopril and propranolol reduced IOP. However, the marked reduction of BP, and consequently of PP caused by captopril may be undesirable for irrigation of the optic nerve.

Calcium antagonists as first-line therapy in hypertension: results of the Swiss Isradipine Study. Swiss Hypertension Society

In this study of the efficacy and safety of isradipine as first-line therapy in hypertension, 1,647 patients enrolled; 1,472 completed the 4-week placebo run-in period and began treatment with isradipine at 2.5 mg twice daily for 4 weeks. During placebo, 11% (n = 175) of the 1,647 patients withdrew because of normalization of blood pressure, side effects, noncompliance, violation of the study protocol, side effects from concomitant therapy, or other reasons. During isradipine therapy (n = 1,376), blood pressure decreased from 168 +/- 18/102 +/- 8 mm Hg at the end of the placebo period to 155 +/- 17/94 +/- 9 mm Hg after 2 weeks (p less than 0.001) and 151 +/- 16/92 +/- 9 mm Hg after 4 weeks (p less than 0.001). During active treatment, 6.4% (n = 94) were withdrawn because of flushing, headache, edema, palpitations, gastrointestinal side effects, skin rashes, or other side effects, and two patients because of lack of efficacy. The side effect score in the remaining patients worsened for flushing, remained unchanged for edema, but significantly improved for palpitations, fatigue, dizziness, headache, and nervousness. After 4 weeks, 60% of patients had diastolic blood pressures of less than or equal to 90 mm Hg. Thus, isradipine is effective and safe as first-line therapy in patients with primary hypertension as seen in general practice.

Le traitement de l'hypertension artérielle: quel médicament pour quelle malade [The treatment of arterial hypertension: which drug for which patient?]

Hypertension is a multifactorial disease. Various antihypertensive drugs can lower arterial pressure in a given patient in a more or less efficient way. The sequential testing of several drugs is most promising for lowering blood pressure by monotherapy. If necessary a drug combination is preferable to dose adjustments of a single substance because of the risk for side effects growing with the dose.

Severe hypertension following accidental clonidine overdose during the refilling of an implanted intrathecal drug delivery system.

BACKGROUND:   Complications associated with intrathecal pumps may be linked to the surgical procedure, the implanted device, or the medication itself.¦CASE REPORTS:   Three patients treated chronically with intrathecal clonidine presented with clonidine overdose due to inadvertent extravasation during the refilling procedure. All patients experienced loss of consciousness and severe systemic hypertension that required aggressive parenteral treatment.¦DISCUSSION:   Clonidine is an alpha-2 agonist with a nearly 100% bioavailability after oral or rectal administration. With high plasma concentration secondary to massive systemic overdose, the specificity for the alpha-2 receptor is lost and an alpha-1 agonist activity predominates and causes marked hypertension. Management of clonidine overdose consists of supportive therapy guided by signs and symptoms.¦CONCLUSION:   Inadvertent injection into the subcutaneous pocket rather than the reservoir is rare but very dangerous as the drug cannot be retrieved and massive doses are involved. Signs and symptoms of systemic overdose with drugs commonly used in implanted drugs delivery system should be well known to ensure early diagnosis and treatment.

Hypertoniebehandlung bei Nierenarterienstenose [Hypertension therapy in patients with renal artery stenosis].

Renovascular hypertension is due to reduced renal parenchymal perfusion. The correct diagnosis can be difficult. It is important to note that the demonstration of renal artery stenosis in a patient with hypertension does not necessarily constitute renovascular hypertension. Often, clinically nonsignificant and asymptomatic renal artery stenosis are found in patients with essential hypertension, or renal failure of other origin. Renovascular disease is a complex disorder with various clinical presentations. In patients with significant renovascular hypertension plasma renin is increased. For this reason the therapy aims to block the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Bilateral renal artery stenosis causes renal sodium retention. In this situation a diuretic drug has to be added to the therapy. Endovascular or surgical therapy has to be considered in patients with flash pulmonary edema or fibromuscular dysplasia. The control of cardiovascular risk factors is important.

Hypertension in Patients with Cancer

There is a known association between chemotherapy and radiotherapy for treatment of cancer patients and development or worsening of hypertension. The aim of this article is to review this association. A literature search was conducted for articles reporting this association on the databases PubMed, SciELO and LILACS between 1993 and 2013. There was a high coprevalence of hypertension and cancer, since both diseases share the same risk factors, such as sedentary lifestyle, obesity, smoking, unhealthy diet and alcohol abuse. The use of chemotherapy and adjuvant drugs effective in the treatment of cancer increased the survival rate of these patients and, consequently, increased the incidence of hypertension. We described the association between the use of angiogenesis inhibitors (bevacizumab, sorafenib and sunitinib), corticosteroids, erythropoietin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with the development of hypertension. We also described the relationship between hypertension and carotid baroreceptor injury secondary to cervical radiotherapy. Morbidity and mortality increased in patients with cancer and hypertension without proper antihypertensive treatment. We concluded that there is need for early diagnosis, effective monitoring and treatment strategies for hypertension in cancer patients in order to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Electronic compliance monitoring in resistant hypertension: the basis for rational therapeutic decisions.

OBJECTIVE: Incomplete compliance is one of several possible causes of uncontrolled hypertension. Yet, non-compliance remains largely unrecognized and is falsely interpreted as treatment resistance, because it is difficult to confirm or exclude objectively. The goal of this study was to evaluate the potential benefits of electronic monitoring of drug compliance in the management of patients with resistant hypertension. METHODS: Forty-one hypertensive patients resistant to a three-drug regimen (average blood pressure 156/ 106 +/- 23/11 mmHg, mean +/- SD) were studied prospectively. They were informed that for the next 2 months, their presently prescribed drugs would be provided in electronic monitors, without any change in treatment, so as to provide the treating physician with a measure of their compliance. Thereafter, patients were offered the possibility of prolonging the monitoring of compliance for another 2 month period, during which treatment was adapted if necessary. RESULTS: Monitoring of compliance alone was associated with a significant improvement of blood pressure at 2 months (145/97 +/- 20/15 mmHg, P < 0.01). During monitoring, blood pressure was normalized (systolic < 140 mmHg or diastolic < 90 mmHg) in one-third of the patients and insufficient compliance was unmasked in another 20%. When analysed according to tertiles of compliance, patients with the lowest compliance exhibited significantly higher achieved diastolic blood pressures (P = 0.04). In 30 patients, compliance was monitored up to 4 months and drug therapy was adapted whenever necessary. In these patients, a further significant decrease in blood pressure was obtained (from 150/100 +/- 18/15 to 143/94 +/- 22/11 mmHg, P = 0.04/0.02). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that objective monitoring of compliance using electronic devices may be a useful step in the management of patients with refractory hypertension, as it enables physicians to take rational decisions based on reliable and objective data of drug compliance and hence to improve blood pressure control.