Blood pressure lowering or selection of antihypertensive agent: which is more important?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Antihypertensive Agents↗
Biomedical subjects
Luis M Ruilope
Publications and source records attributed to Luis M Ruilope.
[PREVENCAT study: control of cardiovascular risk in primary care].
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Most studies of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) conducted in our environment concentrate in a single CVRF. The PREVENCAT study was designed to estimate the control of CVRF in the population attended in primary care presenting arterial hypertension (HT), type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) and/or hypercholesterolemia (HC) as well as to assess the prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Multicenter, cross-sectional study, in patients with HT, DM2 and/or HC, consecutively recruited by primary care physicians in Spain. The blood pressure, cholesterol, basal glycaemia, obesity, smoking and physical activity were assessed. The degree of control of these CVRF and the prevalence of MS were estimated. RESULTS: 2,649 patients were recruited, aged 64 (11.3) years, with a 51.6% of women. The most frequent diagnosis was HT (78.9%), followed by HC (58.4%) and DM2 (37.4%). In the whole sample, the percentages of patients who had a control or had initially normal values of blood pressure, cholesterol and basal glycemia were 40.0% (confidence interval [CI], 95% 38.2-41.9), 42.6% (95% CI, 40.5-44.7) and 62.7% (95% CI, 60.8-64.5), respectively. 15.6% of cases (95% CI, 14.3-17.0) had body mass index < or = 25 kg/m2; 87.5% were non-current smokers (95% CI, 86.2-88.8); and 46.2% practiced regular physical activity (95% CI, 44.3-48.1). 40% of patients had < or = 2 CVRF in good control. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 50.6% (95% CI, 48.7-52.5). CONCLUSIONS: The control of the CVRF considered in primary care attended population is insufficient. Hardly one of each 2 patients with HT, DM2 and HC is under control. The overweight and sedentarism control is still poorer.
Adult↗
Efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide compared with amlodipine monotherapy in hypertensive patients with other cardiovascular risk factors: the VAST study.
BACKGROUND: Recent antihypertensive treatment guidelines recommend greater use of combination therapies. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether combination therapy with valsartan 160 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg OD would be more effective than monotherapy with amlodipine 10 mg OD in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with moderate (stage II) hypertension and > or =1 other cardiovascular risk factor or concomitant condition. A secondary objective was to assess the effects of the study treatments on circulating markers of endothelial dysfunction and vascular inflammation. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 24-week study. After a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to 3 groups, 2 of them receiving valsartan 160 mg OD and 1 receiving amlodipine 5 mg OD. At week 4, HCTZ 12.5 mg OD was added to valsartan in one of the treatment groups (V+HCTZ12.5), HCTZ 25 mg OD was added to the other (V+HCTZ25), and the amlodipine dose was force-titrated to 10 mg OD (A10). The primary efficacy variable was change in mean sitting SBP at week 24. Other variables were changes in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean pulse pressure (PP) from baseline, and response rate (systolic response defined as mean sitting SBP <140 mm Hg or a reduction in mean sitting SBP of > or =20 mm Hg from baseline; diastolic response defined as mean sitting DBP <90 mm Hg or a reduction in mean sitting DBP of > or =10 mm Hg from baseline). Changes in the following markers of endothelial dysfunction were determined at baseline and weeks 4, 12, and 24 in all randomized patients from the participating European and South African centers: high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), vascular tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) antigen, and oxidized low-density lipoprotein (LDL). RESULTS: The study enrolled 1088 patients with moderate hypertension (mean age, 61 years; 82% white; 53% women). The intent-to-treat population consisted of 1079 patients: 357 in the V+HCTZ12.5 group, 363 in the V+HCTZ25 group, and 359 in the A10 group. At baseline, the groups were comparable in terms of blood pressure and most other characteristics; the only statistically significant difference between groups was in the proportion of patients aged > or =65 years, which was lower in the amlodipine group (P = 0.01). At the end of the study, the least squares mean (SD) changes from baseline in mean sitting SBP were 27.1 (13.7), 29.7 (13.7), and 27.6 (13.8) mm Hg in the V+HCTZ12.5, V+HCTZ25, and A10 groups, respectively, with corresponding percent changes of 16%, 18%, and 17% (P < 0.05, V+HCTZ25 vs A10). The changes in mean sitting DBP did not differ significantly between groups. The reductions in PP were 17.5 (11.3), 18.7 (11.3), and 16.9 (11.3) mm Hg, with percent changes of 24%, 26%, and 23% (P < 0.05, V+HCTZ25 vs A10). Significant reductions in t-PA antigen were observed in both combination-therapy groups compared with the amlodipine monotherapy group at week 12 (P < 0.05); the reductions remained significant through the end of the study in the V+HCTZ12.5 group. There was a significant reduction in IL-6 and hs-CRP at week 12 with V+HCTZ25 compared with A10 (P < 0.05). Oxidized LDL values were reduced by approximately 10% with all treatments. Rates of total adverse events were significantly lower with the valsartan-based treatments compared with amlodipine monotherapy (49.7%, 49.6%, and 67.5% with V+HCTZ12.5, V+HCTZ25, and A10, respectively; P < 0.05). Rates of total discontinuations were a respective 10.1%, 9.0%, and 24.5%, and discontinuation rates due to AEs were 4.2%, 3.5%, and 18.2%. Leg edema was more common with amlodipine monotherapy than with the valsartan-based combinations (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this group of patients with moderate hypertension and > or =1 other cardiovascular risk factor or concomitant condition, similar and greater antihypertensive effects were seen with the fixed-dose combinations of valsartan 160 mg and HCTZ 12.5 and 25 mg OD, respectively, compared with amlodipine 10 mg OD, with significantly lower rates of treatment-related adverse events and possible beneficial effects on vascular markers.
Age Factors↗
Advantages of new cardiovascular risk-assessment strategies in high-risk patients with hypertension.
BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in patients with hypertension is important when planning appropriate treatment of modifiable risk factors. The causes of CVD are multifactorial, and hypertension seldom exists as an isolated risk factor. Classic models of risk assessment are more accurate than a simple counting of risk factors, but they are not generalizable to all populations. In addition, the risk associated with hypertension is graded, continuous, and independent of other risk factors, and this is not reflected in classic models of risk assessment. OBJECTIVE: This article is intended to review both classic and newer models of CVD risk assessment. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched for articles published between 1990 and 2005 that contained the terms cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or risk assessment. Articles describing major clinical trials, new data about cardiovascular risk, or global risk stratification were selected for review. RESULTS: Some patients at high long-term risk for CVD events (eg, patients aged <50 years with multiple risk factors) may go untreated because they do not meet the absolute risk-intervention threshold of 20% risk over 10 years with the classic model. Recognition of the limitations of classic risk-assessment models led to new guidelines, particularly those of the European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology. These guidelines view hypertension as one of many risk and disease factors that require treatment to decrease risk. These newer guidelines include a more comprehensive range of risk factors and more finely graded blood pressure ranges to stratify patients by degree of risk. Whether they accurately predict CVD risk in most populations is not known. Evidence from the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) study, which stratified patients by several risk and disease factors, highlights the predictive value of some newer CVD risk assessments. CONCLUSION: Modern risk assessments, which include blood pressure along with a wide array of modifiable risk factors, may be more accurate than classic models for CVD risk prediction.
Cardiovascular Diseases↗
Long-term renoprotective effects of standard versus high doses of telmisartan in hypertensive nondiabetic nephropathies.
BACKGROUND: This report describes an open randomized study intended to evaluate the long-term renoprotective effects of "standard" (80 mg once daily) versus "high" (80 mg twice daily) doses of telmisartan in hypertensive patients without diabetes with biopsy-proven chronic proteinuric nephropathies. METHODS: We included 78 patients (age, 43.5 +/- 13.2 years; 71.8% men). After a 4-week wash-out period, patients were randomly assigned to telmisartan, 80 mg once daily (n = 40) or 80 mg twice daily (n = 38), during a mean follow-up of 24.6 +/- 2.2 months. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups, including blood pressure, renal function, and proteinuria. Blood pressure control did not differ between groups during follow-up. In the group administered telmisartan, 80 mg once daily, serum creatinine level increased from 1.6 +/- 0.6 to 2.7 +/- 0.9 mg/dL (141 +/- 52 to 239 +/- 80 micromol/L), and estimated creatinine clearance declined from 68 +/- 30 to 50 +/- 34 mL/min (1.13 +/- 0.50 to 0.83 +/- 0.57 mL/s), whereas in those administered 80 mg twice daily, serum creatinine (1.6 +/- 0.7 to 1.6 +/- 0.8 mg/dL [141 +/- 62 to 141 +/- 71 micromol/L]) and estimated creatinine clearance values (67 +/- 38 to 74 +/- 38 mL/min [1.12 +/- 0.63 to 1.23 +/- 0.63 mL/s]) did not change during the study. The decrease in proteinuria was more pronounced (P < 0.01) in patients administered the high dose of telmisartan compared with those treated with the standard dose. Serum potassium levels and lipid profiles did not change significantly in either group. CONCLUSION: Long-term administration of high doses of telmisartan seems to improve the efficacy of the drug to decrease proteinuria and slow the progression to end-stage renal failure in nondiabetic hypertensive renal disease.
Adult↗
Angiotensin receptor blockers: therapeutic targets and cardiovascular protection.
In the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease, pharmacological treatment strategies should have several aims: (i) in individuals without overt cardiovascular disease, but with risk factors such as hypertension and/or diabetes, pharmacotherapy should prevent or delay disease development; (ii) in patients who have already progressed to cardiovascular disease, pharmacotherapy should help either to prevent or regress target organ damage (TOD); and (iii) in patients with TOD, pharmacotherapy should prevent events. Any medication intended for long-term therapy also should be well tolerated. Inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system has proven a successful therapeutic strategy in cardiovascular and renal medicine. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have demonstrated important advantages over conventional agents such as beta-blockers and thiazide diuretics, and have become a relevant part of treatment for heart failure post-myocardial infarction, left ventricular dysfunction and renal disease. Tolerability concerns may prevent their use in some patients, however. Angiotensin AT1 receptor blockers (ARBs) provide a different form of blockade of the renin-angiotensin system and a growing body of evidence suggests that this alternative approach may confer additional cardiovascular protection for some patient subgroups. In addition, ARBs generally are better tolerated than ACE inhibitors, enhancing patient compliance and persistence with long-term therapy. Furthermore, evidence in favour of combining an ACE inhibitor and an ARB in certain circumstances is continuously growing.
Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers↗
24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure effects of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide combinations compared with amlodipine in hypertensive patients at increased cardiovascular risk: a VAST sub-study.
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data on the effects of angiotensin-receptor blocker and diuretic combinations on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, the effects on 24-h ABP of the combination valsartan 160 mg od and hydrochlorothiazide 25 or 12.5 mg during 24 weeks of therapy were compared with the effects of amlodipine 10 mg monotherapy (group A10) in 474 stage-II hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors. After a two-week single-blind placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive valsartan 160 mg od or amlodipine 5 mg od. At week 4, HCTZ 12.5 mg (group V160/HCTZ12.5) and 25 mg (group V160/HCTZ25) were added to the valsartan groups and in the A10 patients the amlodipine dose was force-titrated to 10 mg od. RESULTS: All three treatments reduced 24-h BP as well as night-time and daytime BP levels from baseline. Twenty-four hour systolic blood pressure (SBP) was reduced by 15.9+/-1.0 mmHg (least-squares mean change+/-SE), 19.3+/-1.0 mmHg and 16.1+/-1.1 mmHg in the V160/HCTZ12.5, V160/HCTZ25 and A10 groups, respectively and 24-h diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was reduced by 9.3+/-0.6 mmHg, 11.4+/-0.6 mmHg and 9.6+/-0.7 mmHg in the three groups. The differences between the V160/HCTZ25 group and the A10 group were significant (p<0.05) for the changes in 24-h systolic BP as well as for changes in daytime systolic BP and night-time diastolic BP. Control rates defined as ABPM < or =130/80 mmHg were: 48.4%, 60.8% and 50.9% in the V160/HCTZ12.5, V160/25 and A10 groups, respectively. The differences in control rates between the V160/HCTZ25 group and the other two treatment groups were significant at p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed-dose combination of valsartan 160 mg+HCTZ 25 mg od is an attractive therapeutic option measured on the effects on 24-h ABPM, night-time and daytime BP reduction and control rates in hypertensive patients at additional cardiovascular risk.
Aged↗
Renal function and cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Blood Pressure↗
Do we need to target 'prediabetic' hypertensive patients?
Patients at risk for diabetes development have been recently characterized as those presenting higher baseline serum glucose concentration, increased body mass index, elevated systolic blood pressure, reduced serum high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and those with history of prior use of antihypertensive drugs. Little is known, however, about the long-term outcome of patients at high risk for diabetes development, so-called 'prediabetic' patients. Prediabetes state has been defined as the presence of either impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose, and accumulating evidence suggests that individuals with a non-diabetic range of hyperglycaemia (prediabetic) are already at risk for cardiovascular diseases. This short review analyses the need of targeting 'prediabetic' hypertensive patients in order to develop strategies for cardiovascular protection intended to diminish the consequences of precipitating the development of diabetes and its cardiovascular and renal deleterious effects.
Antihypertensive Agents↗
Minor abnormalities of renal function: a situation requiring integrated management of cardiovascular risk.
Changes in renal function related with essential hypertension are associated with an elevated cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Indices of altered renal function (e.g. microalbuminuria, increased serum creatinine concentrations, decrease in estimated creatinine clearance or overt proteinuria) are independent predictors of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The Framingham Heart Study documented the relevance of proteinuria for cardiovascular prognosis in the community. The Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT) Study assessed the role of proteinuria as a very powerful risk factor. It has also been shown that microalbuminuria along with primary hypertension poses a high risk for cardiovascular diseases. Recent data indicate that even minor derangements of renal function are associated with the clustering of cardiovascular risk factors observed in metabolic syndrome, that promote progression of atherosclerosis. All these parameters should be routinely evaluated in clinical practice, and considered in any stratification of cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients. The high prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the general and in the hypertensive populations implies the need for an integrative therapeutic approach to fully protect renal and cardiovascular systems simultaneously.
Albuminuria↗
Calcium channel blockers and renal protection: insights from the latest clinical trials.
Calcium channel blockers have been widely used in clinical practice because of their antihypertensive capacity. Prevention of renal damage is a very important aim of antihypertensive therapy. This is particularly so taking into account the high prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the general population. Recent data have shown that CKD is related to the absence of adequate BP control and also to the clustering of other cardiovascular risk factors seen in the metabolic syndrome. The knowledge of the capacities of the different antihypertensive drugs or their combinations to simultaneously control BP while protecting the kidney and avoiding the facilitation of metabolic alterations is warranted. Recent data from the Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment trial, Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial, and African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) allow the conclusion that in hypertensive patients with preserved renal function or with CKD, calcium channel blockers are effective antihypertensive drugs to be considered alone or in combination with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker.
Calcium Channel Blockers↗
The launch of the Renin Academy.
The Renin Academy was launched during the first week of September in Stockholm, at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) annual congress. The Academy aims to encourage understanding of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and to raise awareness of the benefits of optimising RAAS suppression.
Humans↗
Blood pressure control and physician management of hypertension in hospital hypertension units in Spain.
Goal blood pressure (BP) was defined by the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC-VI) and the World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension (WHO/ISH) as <140 mm Hg systolic and <90 mm Hg diastolic for the general and <130 mm Hg systolic and <85 mm Hg diastolic for special high-risk populations. However, there are few reports that address BP control among special subgroups of hypertensives by reference to targeted BP. We therefore conducted a study to evaluate BP control of 4049 hypertensives in 47 hospital-based hypertension units in Spain. Overall, 42% of patients achieved goal BP (<140 mm Hg systolic and <90 mm Hg diastolic). Only 13% of diabetic patients and 17% of those with renal disease achieved the BP goal (<130 mm Hg systolic and <85 mm Hg diastolic), and only 10% and 12%, respectively, achieved the even more rigorous goal (<130 mm Hg systolic and <80 mm Hg diastolic). Likewise, only 18% of patients in JNC-VI risk group C and 17% of WHO/ISH high-risk patients attained a goal BP <130 mm Hg systolic and <85 mm Hg diastolic. BP control (<125 mm Hg systolic and <75 mm Hg diastolic) was extremely low (2%) in patients with proteinuria >1 g/d. Poorer BP control was observed among patients at high risk, with diabetes, renal disease, or obesity, than in lower-risk groups. BP control was lower for systolic than for diastolic BP. In >50% of uncontrolled patients, no measures were taken by doctors to optimize pharmacologic treatment, and approximately one-third of patients were still using drug monotherapy. Control of BP, particularly of systolic BP, is still far from optimal in hospital-based hypertension units. Patients at high risk, with diabetes or proteinuria, warrant focused attention. Moreover, a more aggressive behavior of doctors treating uncontrolled hypertension is needed.
Adult↗
Erectile dysfunction in essential arterial hypertension and effects of sildenafil: results of a Spanish national study.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to establish the prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) in hypertensive patients in specialized care hypertension units (SCHUs) and to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of sildenafil treatment. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, open, observational pharmacoepidemiology study conducted in 25 Spanish SCHUs. A total of 2130 men with essential hypertension under treatment were recruited. In a second phase, 291 subjects with a score < or = 21 in the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) received sildenafil (50 mg/day) as required 30 to 60 minutes before sexual activity, and were evaluated by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). RESULTS: A total of 975 subjects (45.8%) had a score < or = 21 in the SHIM. In the second phase, sildenafil improved the score in the erectile function domain in 232 patients (83.2%). Severity of ED significantly improved (P <.001); severe (22.3% to 7.7%), moderate (23% to 5.6%), and mild impairment (36.3% to 44.8%). The IIEF was normalized in 39.1% of patients who completed post-treatment IIEF. In all, 33 subjects (11.8%) failed to complete the study: two (0.7%) because of lack of efficacy, two (0.7%) intercurrent disease, 10 (3.6%) failure to return to the visits, three (1.1%) fear of therapy, four (1.4%) adverse effects requiring treatment discontinuation, and 12 (4.3%) protocol violations. No statistically significant association was found between the prevalence of adverse effects and antihypertensive treatment with single drug or combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: A high incidence of ED was found in hypertensive patients from Spanish SCHUs. Sildenafil showed an excellent response and safety profile.
3',5'-Cyclic-GMP Phosphodiesterases↗
Beyond hypertension toward guidelines for cardiovascular risk reduction.
BACKGROUND: Most current clinical guidelines focus primarily on the management of individual cardiovascular risk factors, such as high blood pressure (BP), hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes. A more appropriate clinical approach to reducing cardiovascular disease risk would be based on a comprehensive evaluation of risk profile, and accurate stratification of global (absolute) risk in individual patients. We propose that global risk should be used as the main determinant of whom to treat, how to treat, and how much to treat. METHODS: In this article we use a series of case studies to demonstrate the implications of replacing the traditional "single risk factor-based" approach to managing hypertension by one based on global risk assessment. In some situations patients with mildly elevated BP levels would not be recommended for antihypertensive drug treatment whereas others with lower BP would be treated, depending upon the entire risk profile. CONCLUSION: We propose to replace the single risk factor-based approach with the assessment of global cardiovascular risk, both in the clinical management of individual patients and in guidelines.
Aged↗
The pathophysiology of hyperuricemia in essential hypertension: a pilot study.
We have examined whether hyperuricemia in essential hypertension may be related to an increased insulin secretion thereby enhancing the tubular reabsorption of sodium and thus uric acid. Insulin hypersecretion, as elicited by the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), increased a mean of 5-fold in 12 essential hypertensive patients. Urinary uric acid to creatinine ratio significantly diminished by a mean of 62% after the OGTT. Simultaneously, urinary sodium to creatinine ratio decreased by a mean of 54%. These results suggest that insulin may mediate uric acid underexcretion due to its tubular sodium retaining effect in essential hypertensive patients.
Adult↗
New European guidelines for management of hypertension: what is relevant for the nephrologist.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Europe↗
Intervention at lower blood pressure levels to achieve target goals in type 2 diabetes: PRADID (PResión Arterial en DIabéticos tipo Dos) study.
BACKGROUND: Arterial hypertension greatly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, renal insufficiency, and retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Epidemiological studies all document a reduced risk for the aforementioned consequences at a blood pressure (BP) lower than 130/80 mmHg. For this reason, lower target BPs are recommended by recent guidelines committees. A lower threshold BP for treatment, also proposed in guidelines, could facilitate the attainment of the recommended target BP. However, little data exist on the efficacy and safety of starting pharmacological therapy in type 2 diabetic patients exhibiting high-normal BP (HNBP) or the first stage of isolated systolic hypertension previously considered as borderline isolated systolic hypertension (BISH). OBJECTIVE: To determine the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the fixed-dose combination of the non-dihydropiridine calcium channel blocker (CCB) and ACE inhibitor verapamil SR/trandolapril 180/2 mg (V + T), versus trandolapril 2 mg (T), versus placebo (P) in previously untreated type 2 diabetic patients diagnosed as having HNBP or BISH. METHODS: Multicentric, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a 16-week follow-up in three groups totalling 438 participants. The primary end-point was to attain the recommended guideline goal of a systolic BP (SBP) value lower than 130 mmHg in all patients and a diastolic BP (DBP) value lower than 85 mmHg in HNBP. Participants were randomized (2:2:1) to verapamil V + T, T, or P. Doses were doubled at week 8 if BP was not controlled. RESULTS: Both active groups were more effective than placebo to decrease SBP and DBP. The mean difference in SBP from placebo was 7.1 mmHg (3.3-10.9, 95% confidence interval (CI); P < 0.001) for T and 7.8 mmHg (3.9-11.6, 95% CI; P < 0.001) for V + T, with no statistical difference between both active groups. Combined treatment (V + T) decreased DBP by 4.6 mmHg (2.3-6.9, 95% CI; P < 0.001) more than placebo and 2.1 mmHg (0.3-4.0, 95% CI; P = 0.021) more than T. At the end of the study, 36.5% in the T group, 37.8% in the V + T group, and 14.9% (P = 0.009, P versus V + T and T) had attained the primary end-point. No significant difference was found between T and V + T with regard to the percentage of good control for SBP, but the control rate on the DBP (DBP < 85 mmHg) was significantly higher in the V + T group (88.8%), when compared with T (79.1%) or P (63.5%) (P = 0.002). Withdrawal rates due to adverse effects did not differ among trandolapril alone (9.4%), the combination (11.7%) and placebo (8.1%). CONCLUSION: Antihypertensive treatment is more effective than placebo for controlling SBP and DBP in previously untreated participants with type 2 diabetes exhibiting low threshold BP values. Combination therapy with verapamil SR/trandolapril was more effective than trandolapril alone for controlling DBP.
Aged↗