Evaluation of antihypertensive efficacy of lisinopril compared to metoprolol in moderate to severe hypertension

Current and future status of beta-blockers in the treatment of hypertension

Beta-adrenergic receptor blockers (beta-blockers) are effective and safe antihypertensive drugs, and have been recommended as first-line therapy for hypertension by all Joint National Committees (JNCs) for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure (BP) from the first to the last (JNC-7) in 2003. However, recently questions have been raised by several investigators regarding the antihypertensive effectiveness and safety of these drugs. The Medline literature on this subject was searched and pertinent studies were retrieved. Other pertinent references from existing publications were retrieved and analyzed up to 2007. Additionally, a historical perspective on the discovery of beta-blockers and their mechanism of action is given. Most of the reviewed short-term and long-term clinical trials demonstrate an effective and safe antihypertensive pattern for the beta-blockers. The weaknesses identified include the adverse effect of older beta-blockers on glucose control and stroke protection, especially in older persons. These adverse effects are attributed to their mechanism of action and BP effectiveness. On the basis of the evidence presented, beta-blockers are effective and safe antihypertensive drugs and should still be recommended as first-line therapy in most uncomplicated hypertensive patients, either alone or in combination with other drugs. There are reservations regarding their administration to diabetic and older hypertensive patients. However, when compelling indications for their use exist, they should not be withheld.

Addition of an angiotensin receptor blocker to full-dose ACE-inhibition: controversial or common sense?

Both angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) interfere with the activity of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in a different way. Theoretically, one might expect beneficial effects when they are used in combination, as a more complete suppression of the RAS can be achieved. But can this additional effect still be seen in patients on full-dose ACE-inhibition? Several controlled trials demonstrated that combination therapy can have additional benefits in hypertensive patients, in chronic heart failure patients, and in both diabetic and non-diabetic nephropathy patients. However, the clinical benefit was not always as pronounced as expected and not every patient will benefit from dual blockade of the RAS. There is some evidence of a less pronounced effect of combination therapy when a full dose of the ACE-inhibitor is given. However, it is well known that ACE-inhibitors cannot completely suppress the formation of angiotensin II, in particular, when the RAS is activated. Indeed, clinical trials indicated that add-on therapy with an ARB was especially of use when the RAS remained activated despite full-dose ACE-inhibitor treatment. In summary, combination of a full-dose ACE-inhibitor and an ARB can be a rational choice in selected patients.

Quality of life and cost-effectiveness in the treatment of hypertension

By and large, the results of the different studies on quality of life in hypertension suggest that among beta-blockers only the nonselective beta-blocker propranolol has a negative effect on well-being, being associated with depression and side-effects. The findings on diuretics are comparatively few, and mainly observed as an adverse impact on sexual function. If one broadens the treatment scenario to include mortality and morbidity, evidence of a beneficial impact has only been proven for beta-blockers and diuretics. With the primary aim of antihypertensive drug therapy given as a reduction in cardiovascular risk factors, the aim with regard to quality of life is that quality of life be maintained. The new guidelines on the management of mild hypertension issued in the United States highlight the danger of relaxing the concern for risk reduction and costs in favour of surrogate end-points, even though these may carry great significance in the individual patient.

Differential exercise effects of captopril and nadolol in patients with essential hypertension

In a crossover study, 12 patients with mild to moderate hypertension were given placebo, captopril (12.5 to 50 mg three times a day), and nadolol (20 to 160 mg once a day) to control the resting diastolic blood pressure to a nearly identical degree (p less than 0.0001) (106.1 +/- 4 placebo, 89.6 +/- 8 captopril, 89.8 +/- 7 nadolol). Both drugs lowered (p less than 0.0004) systolic and diastolic blood pressure at rest and during exercise. However, systolic blood pressure lowering during exercise was more pronounced (p less than 0.05) with nadolol than with captopril (difference of 6 mmHg, 16 mmHg, and 21 mmHg at 5.0, 7.0, and 9.0 metabolic equivalents (METS) respectively). Heart rate was lower (p less than 0.05) at rest and during exercise with nadolol as compared with placebo and with captopril. These data imply different mechanisms of action of the two drugs at rest and during exercise and may help in selection of drug therapy in special patient subsets.

Comparison of lisinopril versus atenolol for mild to moderate essential hypertension

The antihypertensive effects and safety profiles of lisinopril (10 to 40 mg) and atenolol (50 to 100 mg) were compared in a randomized, double-blind, parallel group trial in 144 patients with essential hypertension. After 8 weeks of therapy, seated blood pressure (BP) decreased by 26/15 mm Hg with lisinopril and by 19/14 mm Hg with atenolol. Lisinopril produced a greater reduction (p less than 0.05) in sitting systolic BP than did atenolol. Standing BP decreased by 25/15 mm Hg with lisinopril and by 19/14 mm Hg with atenolol. No important changes in hematologic and biochemical profiles were seen with either drug. Eleven patients, 7 receiving lisinopril and 4 receiving atenolol, were withdrawn because of adverse experiences; another 3 patients defaulted during treatment, 1 in the lisinopril group and 2 in the atenolol group. Both drugs were well-tolerated and are therefore suitable for first-line therapy in essential hypertension.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: a comparative review

The chemistry, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, adverse effects, and dosages of the three currently available angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are reviewed. This class of agents effectively inhibits the conversion of angiotensin I to the active vasoconstrictor angiotensin II, a hormone that also promotes, via aldosterone stimulation, increased sodium and water retention. The ACE inhibitors, therefore, are capable of lowering blood pressure primarily by promoting vasodilatation and reducing intravascular fluid volume. Captopril, the first orally active, commercially available ACE inhibitor, is a sulfhydryl-containing compound. Captopril was followed by the introduction of enalapril and lisinopril, two non-sulfhydryl ACE inhibitors. The pharmacokinetic profiles of these three ACE inhibitors differ. Captopril has rapid onset with relatively short duration of action, whereas enalapril and lisinopril have slower onset and relatively long duration of action. Captopril is an active ACE inhibitor in its orally absorbable parent form. In contrast, enalapril must be deesterified in the liver to the metabolite enalaprilat in order to inhibit the converting enzyme; this accounts for its delayed onset of action. Lisinopril does not require metabolic activation to be effective; however, a slow and incomplete absorption pattern explains the delay in onset of activity. Captopril and its disulfide metabolites are primarily excreted in the urine with minor elimination in the feces. Approximately two-thirds of an administered enalapril dose is excreted in the urine as both the parent drug and the metabolite enalaprilat; the remainder of these two substances are excreted in the feces. Lisinopril does not undergo measurable metabolism and approximately one-third is excreted unchanged in the urine with the remaining parent drug being excreted in the feces. The ACE inhibitors lower systemic vascular resistance with a resultant decrease in blood pressure. Their efficacy is comparable to diuretics and beta-blockers in treating patients with mild, moderate, or severe essential and renovascular hypertension. In those patients with severe congestive heart failure (CHF) the ACE inhibitors produce a reduction in systemic vascular resistance, blood pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and pulmonary artery pressure. These drugs may produce improvement in cardiac output and stroke volume and, with chronic administration, may promote regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. The antihypertensive effects of the ACE inhibitors are enhanced when these agents are combined with a diuretic. Captopril and enalapril have been shown to be of particular benefits as adjunctive therapy in patients with congestive heart failure, both in terms of subjective improvement of patient symptoms, and in improving overall hemodynamic status.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Lisinopril in elderly patients with hypertension. Long term effects on renal and metabolic function

The efficacy and tolerability of lisinopril administered once daily were evaluated in a 12-week open study of 60 elderly patients aged between 65 and 85 years (mean 75 years) with essential hypertension. Mean sitting blood pressure was reduced from 190/106 +/- 6.3/1.3mm Hg (mean +/- SEM) at entry to 162/89 +/- 5.5/0.9 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment (p less than 0.001). There was no significant alteration in heart rate, and no occurrence of postural hypotension. The median daily dose of lisinopril was 20mg (range 5 to 40 mg) and only 4 patients required the addition of a diuretic. Mean glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at entry was 61.6 +/- 3.4 ml/min and was unchanged after 12 weeks of therapy. 25 patients continued to receive treatment for 1 year, and 20 of these completed 2 years of treatment. Control of blood pressure was maintained, and heart rate, biochemical parameters and GFR remained unaltered throughout the study. Renal function was preserved and renal blood flow, measured in a group of 14 patients, was significantly increased (p less than 0.025) at the end of the first year after treatment with lisinopril. Thus, in the elderly, lisinopril was well tolerated and highly effective in lowering blood pressure, and renal function was maintained.

Initial therapy for hypertension--individualizing care

Of the approximately 58 million Americans with hypertension, the majority have only mild increases in blood pressure and individually are at low risk. Large group studies, however, have demonstrated the efficacy of treating mild hypertension. Public health efforts during the past 16 years have increased the number of hypertensive patients made aware of their condition and brought into treatment. A major problem, however, is consistently maintaining patients on long-term therapy. A large number of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments have become available for the management of hypertension. These treatments must be applied individually to enhance benefit, minimize potential harm, and increase the likelihood of long-term compliance for what is often a lifelong disorder. For accomplishing this goal, a thorough understanding of important characteristics of both the individual patient and the available therapeutic modalities is needed.

Lisinopril dose-response relationship in essential hypertension

1. This was a multicentre, double-blind, parallel study in 216 patients with mild to moderate (supine diastolic blood pressure = 95-115 mm Hg) essential hypertension. 2. After a 4-week placebo washout, patients were randomized to placebo or lisinopril 1.25, 5.20 or 80 mg once daily for 6 consecutive weeks. Supine and erect blood pressure was measured 24 h postdose at the end of weeks -2, 0, 2, 4, and 6. 3. There was a linear dose-response relationship for both supine and erect blood pressure. Diastolic blood pressure reductions in the lisinopril 20 and 80 mg day-1 groups were significantly greater than in the placebo or lisinopril 1.25 and 5 mg day-1 groups. 4. Lisinopril, at doses up to 80 mg day-1, was well tolerated.

Lisinopril: a new angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

Lisinopril is a synthetic, nonsulfhydryl, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. Its bioavailability is approximately 25% and is not affected by food. Hepatic metabolism is not required for pharmacologic effect, which occurs 1 hour after administration. Peak serum concentration and effect are delayed, occurring 6-8 hours after a single dose and lasting for at least 24 hours. The drug is eliminated primarily by the kidneys. The elimination half-life is 12.6 hours and is prolonged in renal impairment. Lisinopril 10-80 mg once a day is effective in lowering blood pressure in all grades of essential and renovascular hypertension. It is as effective as hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, metoprolol, and nifedipine. Combining lisinopril with hydrochlorothiazide produces a greater degree of blood pressure reduction. Patients with congestive heart failure have demonstrated immediate and prolonged beneficial hemodynamic effects and increased exercise tolerance. Lisinopril is well tolerated. Clinically significant drug interactions have not been reported, but caution should be used when lisinopril is administered with diuretics, nifedipine, or agents that may increase concentrations of potassium. The usual initial oral dosage of lisinopril is 10 mg once a day (range 20-40 mg/day). Lower dosages may be necessary in patients with renal impairment or congestive heart failure, elderly persons, and those receiving diuretics.

Hypertension

An estimated 58 million Americans are at increased risk of morbidity and premature death due to high blood pressure (BP) and require some type of therapy or systematic monitoring. This article focuses on recent advances in our understanding of the pathogenesis of hypertension, new approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of secondary hypertension, and current views of the most appropriate nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapy for essential hypertension. In view of the extremely high prevalence of the disorder, emphasis is placed on efficient and cost-effective strategies for diagnosing and managing the hypertensive patient. Recent evidence indicates that nonpharmacologic therapy, including dietary potassium and calcium supplements, reduction of salt intake, weight loss for the obese patient, regular exercise, a diet high in fiber and low in cholesterol and saturated fats, smoking cessation, and moderation of alcohol consumption produces significant sustained reductions in BP while reducing overall cardiovascular risk. Accordingly, nonpharmacologic antihypertensive therapy should be included in the treatment of all hypertensive patients. In persons with mild hypertension, nonpharmacologic approaches may adequately reduce BP, thereby avoiding the expense and potential side effects of drug therapy. In patients with more severe hypertension, nonpharmacologic therapy, used in conjunction with pharmacologic therapy, can reduce the dosage of antihypertensive medications necessary for BP control. Patients treated with nonpharmacologic therapy only should be followed closely, and if BP control is not satisfactory, drug therapy should be added. The large number of drugs available for use in hypertension treatment, coupled with our rapidly expanding knowledge of the pathophysiology of hypertension and of the adverse effects of these drugs in individual patient groups, make it possible to individualize antihypertensive treatment. When used as monotherapy, most agents effectively lower BP in the majority of patients with mild or moderate essential hypertension. Thus, a single agent from one of four classes: diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta-adrenergic blockers, usually provides effective BP control with minimal side effects in most patients. Therapy should be initiated with the agent most likely to be effective in BP lowering and best tolerated. If the initial agent is ineffective at maximal recommended therapeutic doses or has undue side effects, an alternative agent from another class should be tried. When monotherapy is unsuccessful, a second agent, usually of a different mechanism of action, should be

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. II. Clinical use

Since their introduction in clinical practice in 1980, ACE inhibitors have been found useful in the treatment of hypertension and CHF. In hypertension, they are effective as monotherapy in 40% to 50% of the patients, and in combination with diuretics or calcium antagonists, they are effective in up to 85% of the patients. They are well tolerated, are not associated with depression, impotence, bronchospasm or metabolic derangements such as hypokalemia, hyperuricemia or hyperglycemia, and do not have adverse effects on the quality of life. As a result, they are preferred in hypertensive patients with CHF, left ventricular dysfunction, mental depression, older age, coronary artery disease, metabolic disorders, chronic destructive pulmonary disease, and peripheral vascular disease. In CHF they cause long-lasting hemodynamic and symptomatic improvement, improve exercise tolerance, and may lower mortality in certain patient subsets. Evolving new indications for ACE inhibitors include the diagnosis of renovascular hypertension, the prediction of surgical success, the treatment of scleroderma renal crisis, the reduction of proteinuria, renal protection, cardioprotection, the improvement of arterial compliance, in Bartter's syndrome and idiopathic edema, etc. ACE inhibitors are usually well tolerated but in some instances they may cause class-specific side effects such as hypotension; usually reversible azotemia or renal failure, especially in patients with renal artery stenosis or with CHF with low blood pressure; cough; angioedema; and hyperkalemia. Differences among ACE inhibitors are emerging and include chemical class (e.g., zinc ligand), biotransformation, potency, pharmacokinetics, prodrugs, tissue effects, additional pharmacologic properties, and drug interactions.

Antihypertensive and renal effects of lisinopril in older patients with hypertension

The antihypertensive efficacy and safety of lisinopril were assessed in 60 older patients with a mean age of 75 years (range, 65 to 85 years) in a 12-week open study. Mean ( +/- SEM) blood pressure while sitting was reduced from 190/106 +/- 3.3/1.8 mm Hg at entry to 162/89 +/- 3.2/1.6 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment (p less than 0.001). There was no significant alteration in heart rate, and postural hypotension did not occur. Mean glomerular filtration rate at entry was 61.6 +/- 3.4 ml/minute and was unchanged after 12 weeks of therapy at 62.2 +/- 3.0 ml/minute. Fourteen patients continued to receive lisinopril for a period of one year. Blood pressure remained controlled throughout and heart rate remained unchanged. There was a significant reduction in mean arterial pressure from 128.8 +/- 1.9 mm Hg to 105.1 +/- 1.5 mm Hg (p less than 0.001). Biochemical parameters remained unaltered. There was a significant increase in renal blood flow (p less than 0.025) and a corresponding reduction in renovascular resistance (p less than 0.001) following long-term therapy with lisinopril. Thus, lisinopril was generally well-tolerated and highly effective in lowering blood pressure in older hypertensive patients, whereas at the same time renal function was not adversely changed.

Efficacy and safety of lisinopril in older patients with essential hypertension

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy has been thought to be more effective in hypertensive patients with normal or elevated levels of renin in the plasma. However, several studies have challenged this concept by demonstrating the efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (captopril and enalapril) in older patients, among whom a low level of renin activity in the plasma is common, and in other patients with low-renin essential hypertension. Lisinopril, a new long-acting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, also has been shown to be an effective antihypertensive agent in older patients. This report examines data from 97 older and 710 younger hypertensive patients enrolled in four multicenter trials of eight to 12 weeks' duration. In these trials, the dose of lisinopril was titrated until a diastolic pressure of less than 90 mm Hg was reached, or to a maximal dose of 80 mg per day. In general, the antihypertensive effect achieved in older patients with lisinopril was equal to or greater than that achieved in younger patients. The drug was generally well tolerated. Lisinopril can be expected to be used frequently in older patients.

Safety and tolerability of lisinopril in older hypertensive patients

The safety and tolerability of lisinopril have been assessed in 1,734 hypertensive patients treated with the agent in a number of clinical trials. Here we compare the clinical and laboratory adverse experiences in younger (under 55 years old) and older (at least 55 years old) patients treated with lisinopril monotherapy. The incidence of adverse experiences in these older patients was similar to that in the younger patients. A comparison also was made of clinical adverse experience data for older hypertensive patients treated either with lisinopril monotherapy or with various control agents (atenolol, metoprolol, and hydrochlorothiazide) in double-blind controlled studies. In these studies, the clinical adverse experience incidences and discontinuation percentages seen in the older patients treated with lisinopril were comparable to the data from the patients treated with the control agents. Thus, lisinopril is generally well-tolerated in older hypertensive patients, and should be considered a therapeutic option in the management of these patients.

Lisinopril. A preliminary review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in hypertension and congestive heart failure

Lisinopril is an orally active angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor which at dosages of 20 to 80 mg once daily is effective in lowering blood pressure in all grades of essential hypertension. It is at least as effective as usual therapeutic dosages of hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, metoprolol and nifedipine while direct comparisons with other ACE inhibitors have not been reported. Many patients achieve an adequate blood pressure reduction with lisinopril alone, and in those who do not, most will with the addition of hydrochlorothiazide; lisinopril also attenuates hypokalaemia induced by thiazide diuretics. In patients with congestive heart failure resistant to conventional therapy, lisinopril 2.5 to 20 mg once daily improved indices of cardiac function and appeared to produce greater benefit than captopril in one controlled study. Lisinopril is well tolerated, with few serious adverse effects being reported. Thus, lisinopril is a suitable treatment for essential hypertension and shows promise in the treatment of congestive heart failure. If additional studies confirm these preliminary findings, then lisinopril will have a similar profile of indications to other ACE inhibitors, and like some other drugs in this class it offers the convenience of once daily administration.

Lisinopril: dose-peak effect relationship in essential hypertension

1. The dose-peak effect relationship of lisinopril was evaluated in a double-blind, parallel study in 83 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (supine diastolic blood pressure = 95-115 mm Hg). 2. After a 4 week placebo washout, patients were randomly assigned to one of four treatments: lisinopril 2.5, 10, 20 or 80 mg day-1 for 1 week. 3. Lisinopril 10 and 20 mg day-1 produced similar peak antihypertensive effects which were greater than that produced by 2.5 mg day-1, but less than that of 80 mg day-1. If the incidence of first-dose symptomatic hypotension is related to the peak effect, then an initial lisinopril dose of 20 mg should not pose any greater risk than a 10 mg dose. 4. The magnitude of antihypertensive response at 24 h postdrug appeared to be dose related across the 2.5 to 80 mg day-1 range.

Lisinopril: a new angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

Lisinopril is a new, nonsulfhydryl angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor approved for the treatment of hypertension. After oral administration, 25-29 percent of the dose is absorbed intact; biotransformation is not required for pharmacological activity. Onset of action occurs one to two hours after administration, with effects still present 24 hours later. The major route of elimination is through renal excretion and an elimination half-life of 12.6 hours has been reported in normotensive individuals. In patients with impaired renal function (creatinine clearance less than or equal to 30 ml/min) a longer half-life and accumulation have been observed. Lisinopril 20-80 mg/d has been shown to be as effective as hydrochlorothiazide, nifedipine, and beta-blocking agents in the treatment of essential hypertension. Its efficacy in renovascular hypertension has also been demonstrated. In congestive heart failure (CHF) doses of 2.5-20 mg/d appear to provide hemodynamic effects comparable to those of captopril. Dizziness and cough have been the most frequently reported side effects; rash and proteinuria have also been reported in a small number of patients. Interactions with diuretics, potassium supplements, and possibly with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents may occur. Lisinopril appears to be similar in efficacy to other antihypertensive agents in the treatment of essential hypertension and to captopril in the treatment of CHF. Whether lisinopril is safer or more effective than captopril or enalapril in the treatment of hypertension or CHF requires further investigation. Prolonged duration of action of lisinopril allows once daily dosing, unlike captopril for which dosing is required every 8-12 hours or enalapril which may necessitate twice daily dosing.