Individual factors influencing the response to a beta-adrenergic blocking agent given alone and in combination with a diuretic on arterial hypertension

Medications that cause weight gain and alternatives in Canada: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

The cause of the obesity epidemic is multifactorial, but may, in part, be related to medication-induced weight gain. While clinicians may strive to do their best to select pharmacotherapy(ies) that has the least negative impact on weight, the literature regarding the weight effects of medication is often limited and devoid of alternative therapies.

RESULTS

Antipsychotics, antidepressants, antihyperglycemics, antihypertensives and corticosteroids all contain medications that were associated with significant weight gain. However, there are several medication alternatives within the majority of these classes associated with weight neutral or even weight loss effects. Further, while not all of the classes of medication examined in this review have weight-favorable alternatives, there exist many other tools to mitigate weight gain associated with medication use, such as changes in dosing, medication delivery or the use of adjunctive therapies.

CONCLUSION

Medication-induced weight gain can be frustrating for both the patient and the clinician. As the use of pharmaceuticals continues to increase, it is pertinent for clinicians to consider the weight effects of medications prior to prescribing or in the course of treatment. In the case where it is not feasible to make changes to medication, adjunctive therapies should be considered.

Comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and atenolol as initial treatment in uncomplicated hypertension

After screening a local population in the northern part of The Netherlands for hypertension, 119 patients with a diastolic pressure (DP) between 95 and 120 mmHg were randomised and treated either with 50 mg hydrochlorothiazide (n = 59) or 100 mg atenolol (n = 60). After 1 month of treatment 6 patients in the hydrochlorothiazide group and 24 patients in the atenolol group had reached a DP less than or equal to 90 mmHg (p less than 0.001). 43 of the 50 non-responders to hydrochlorothiazide were switched to atenolol and 30 of the 35 non-responders to atenolol were changed to hydrochlorothiazide. One month after the switch 19 patients in the atenolol group and 2 patients in the hydrochlorothiazide group had reached a DP less than or equal to 90 mmHg (p less than 0.001). After 6 months of treatment 32 of the 43 atenolol responders and 7 of the 8 hydrochlorothiazide responders were still receiving the same medication, as their DP was still less than or equal to 90 mmHg. Non-responders to either medication were given the combination (n = 46). 21 patients now became normotensive as did a further 10 after increasing the dose of atenolol to 200 mg. Thus, in all 70 patients had a blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mmHg after treatment for 4 months. Both drugs induced a significant reduction in the total of number of complaints after 1 month of treatment. They did not differ from each other. The reduction was seen both in responders and non-responders and persisted during treatment for 6 months. It is concluded that in terms of short-term efficacy the cardioselective, hydrophilic beta adrenoceptor-blocking drug atenolol is preferable to hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension.

Pharmacokinetics in man of acebutolol and hydrochlorothiazide as single agents and in combination

The pharmacokinetics of acebutolol and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) alone or in combination were studied in 12 healthy subjects in a cross over study. Acebutolol and diacetolol (the main metabolite) in plasma and urine were determined by HPLC and hydrochlorothiazide by GLC. The main pharmacokinetic parameters of acebutolol did not differ significantly: AUC 4492 +/- 272 micrograms l-1h given alone versus 4118 +/- 354 micrograms l-1h with HCT, half-life (7,69 +/- 0,32 h vs 8,10 +/- 0,72 h) and renal clearance (13,1 +/- 0,5 lh-1 vs 13,8 +/- 0,9 lh-1), respectively. There was no difference in diacetolol pharmacokinetics. HCT values were not significantly different: AUC 784 +/- 48 micrograms l-1h given alone and 720 +/- 42 micrograms l-1h with acebutolol, t 1/2 (4,79 +/- 0,37 h vs 4,73 +/- 0,43 h). The renal clearance was slightly higher when HCT was given with acebutolol (26,2 +/- 2,6 vs 20,3 +/- 2,1 lh-1, p less than 0,05). This increase, observed during the first four hours, was probably due to competition between the drugs for binding to red blood cells.

A multiclinic double-blind comparison of timolol and hydrochlorothiazide alone and in combination in th e treatment of essential hypertension

In a multicenter randomized double-blind trial, we compared the antihypertensive effects of 12 weeks of therapy using timolol maleate, a new beta-adrenergic blocking agent, alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide, and hydrochlorothiazide alone in 70 outpatients with mild to moderate uncomplicated essential hypertension (61 of whom completed the study). All three groups showed significant blood pressure reductions in both supine and standing positions which were most marked in the timolol-hydrochlorothiazide group (154/103 leads to 129/85 mm Hg). A good or excellent therapeutic response was obtained in 20 of 21 patients in the timolol-hydrochlorothiazide group. In 16 of 20 patients receiving timolol alone, and in 10 of 20 receiving hydrochlorothiazide alone. Adverse reactions were minimal in all treatment groups but highest in the hydrochlorothiazide group. It was concluded that timolol-hydrochlorothiazide combination is more effective than either drug alone for management of hypertension and that timolol alone or with hydrochlorothiazide is well tolerated.

Pharmacokinetics, mechanisms of action, indications, and adverse effects of timolol maleate, a nonselective beta-adrenoreceptor blocking agent

Timolol, a nonselective beta-adrenoreceptor blocking agent without intrinsic sympathomimetic or membrane stabilizing activity, has been shown effective in the treatment of angina and hypertension. It is particularly useful in patients with stable angina pectoris and patients with mild to moderate hypertension. In both of these conditions, timolol appears to be comparable to propranolol. A recent study has suggested that timolol reduces mortality and reinfarction rate in patients who have recently had a myocardial infarction. When given topically timolol reduces intraocular pressure in patients with open-angle glaucoma; the drug may be used as the primary agent or as an adjunct to standard therapy. Careful selection of patients will reduce the frequency of adverse effects due to beta-receptor inhibition. Thus, timolol should not be used in patients who are predisposed to asthmatic bronchitis or cardiac failure, and it should be used with caution in patients with peripheral vascular disease or diabetes mellitus.