Studies on the clinical pharmacology of prazosin. II: The influence of indomethacin and of propranolol on the action and disposition of prazosin

Hypertension in rheumatoid arthritis

RA associates with an increased burden of cardiovascular disease, which is at least partially attributed to classical risk factors such as hypertension (HT) and dyslipidaemia. HT is highly prevalent, and seems to be under-diagnosed and under-treated among patients with RA. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms that may lead to increased blood pressure in such patients, paying particular attention to commonly used drugs for the treatment of RA. We also suggest screening strategies and management algorithms for HT, specific to the RA population, although it is clear that these need to be formally assessed in prospective randomized controlled trials designed specifically for the purpose, which, unfortunately, are currently lacking.

The effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on blood pressure in patients treated with different antihypertensive drugs

Hypertension and arthritis are both common diseases in the older age group and require pharmacologic treatment. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) alter renal function if given in high enough doses, reducing renal blood flow and the glomerular filtration rate and causing sodium retention. In salt sensitive subjects, this retention of sodium will cause blood pressure to rise. Salt sensitivity is more common in elderly patients, in diabetics, and in people with renal failure. When most antihypertensive drugs are used, people become salt sensitive, as shown by the additive effect of salt restriction or diuretics on blood pressure response. The responses to dihydropyridine and possibly other calcium channel blocking drugs are not affected to any major extent by sodium intake or by diuretics. Studies are described which indicate that indomethacin elevates blood pressure in elderly people treated with enalapril, but not in people whose blood pressure is controlled with amlodipine or felodipine. It is unclear whether the various NSAIDs have different effects on blood pressure. It is proposed that if the same analgesic effect is achieved with the same amount of cyclooxygenase inhibition, the response will be similar. Aspirin, used in a prophylactic dose, does not inhibit to this extent and does not elevate blood pressure. If elderly people require NSAIDs, it would appear that dihydropyridine calcium channel blocking drugs are more effective at lowering and maintaining blood pressure control and should be one of the drugs used. If patients are on other antihypertensive agents, it is important to monitor blood pressure when a NSAID is added to therapy.

Controversies in heart failure. Are beneficial effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors attenuated by aspirin in patients with heart failure?

To whatever extent the improvement in symptoms and survival rendered by treatment with ACE inhibitors is attributable to their effects on the circulation and the kidneys, this benefit can be rescinded by concomitant administration of aspirin. Although some useful prostaglandin-independent actions may persist, shutting down the entire prostaglandin system and trading off a substantial portion of the potential risk reduction with forfeit of salutary hemodynamic and renal effects is a high price to pay just to suppress production of TXA2. In patients requiring treatment for heart failure, if possible, aspirin should be avoided and the integrity of prostaglandin metabolism respected; the severer the heart failure the more compelling. There are other ways to inhibit platelet aggregation, some equally effective or even better than aspirin. Orally active platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists, which may be more efficient than aspirin, have been developed and are now in clinical testing. Ticlopidine and clopidogrel, although more expensive than aspirin, are as easy to use and at least as effective as aspirin. Finally, because patients with severer heart failure are likely to be those with very low ejection fractions, these patients are good candidates for oral anticoagulation even though this treatment requires additional monitoring.

Changes in peripheral hemodynamics and vasodilating prostaglandins after high-dose short-term ibuprofen in chronically treated hypertensive patients

The use of cyclooxygenase inhibitors has been seen to reduce the efficacy of many antihypertensive drugs. However, cyclooxygenase inhibitors are normally non-selective because they affect both vascular tissue, where the endothelial prostanoids exert principally a vasodilatory action, and the kidneys, where they also play an important role in regulating hydroelectrolytic metabolism by redistribution of intraparenchymal flow. To evaluate the relative importance of vascular district in the hypertensive patient, we administered ibuprofen - a drug acting with only a minimal antagonist activity. A group of 20 male hypertensives were randomly allocated, according to a single-blind protocol, to treatment with amlodipine (A, 10 mg/day) or lisinopril (L, 20 mg/day). Blood pressure was significantly reduced after 30 days, with a mean difference of -21.75 mmHg for systolic blood pressure (SBP) (95% confidence interval (Cl): -27.46 to -16.04; P< 0.0001) and -14.15 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (95% Cl: -17.13 to -11.17; P< 0.0001). Brachial artery compliance showed a mean increase of 1.657 x 10(-7) dyn-1 cm(4) (95% Cl: 1.188 to 2.126; P<0.001), and forearm resistances showed a mean decrease of -41.973 mmHg ml(-1)s (95% Cl: -75.479 to -8.467; P = 0.017). Changes in compliance were significantly related to those in SBP (r= -0.546; P= 0.013). The administration of ibuprofen (400 mg, three times a day for 3 days) was accompanied by a slight but significant increase in SBP, but not in brachial artery compliance or forearm resistances. Only SBP was affected, showing a mean increase of 4.25 mmHg (95% Cl: 1.26 to 7.24; P = 0.008). There was also reduced urinary excretion of PGI(2) and TXA(2) metabolites. The mean change in 6-keto-PGF(1 alpha) and 2,3-dinor-6-keto-PGF(1 alpha) was 45.71 ng per g urinary creatinine (uCr) (95% Cl: -0.16 to-91.25; P= 0.049) and -73.17 ng (g uCr)(-1) (95% Cl: -38.81 to -107.53; P<0.001), respectively. The mean decrease in TXA(2) catabolites was highly significant: -39.2 ng (g uCr)(-1) (95% Cl: -18.17 to-60.22; P< 0.001) and -102.87 ng (g uCr)(-1) (95% Cl: -61.86 to -143.88; P< 0.001) for TXB(2) and 2,3-dinor-TXB(2), respectively. Our study highlighted an inverse correlation between changes in blood pressure and those in urinary 2,3-dinor-6-keto-PGF(1alpha) excretion, irrespective of antihypertensive regimen. This suggests that, in the hypertensive patient treated with NSAIDs, inhibition of vascular prostanoid synthesis may play an important role in countering the efficacy of an important vascular tone regulatory mechanism.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and hypertension. The risks in perspective

Prostaglandins play an important role in cardiovascular homeostasis. Among other things, they promote vasodilation and enhance sodium excretion. Since they act as local hormones, it is difficult to assess their activity in the intact organism. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) block the synthesis of prostaglandins, and thus may interfere with circulatory control. Indeed, many reports show that blood pressure may rise during treatment with one of these drugs. However, meta-analyses of such reports indicate that the rise in mean arterial pressure is relatively small, being approximately 5 mm Hg. At the present time, it is not known whether this confers any risk in terms of cardiovascular complications. Moreover, the trials on which this information is based are of relatively short duration. Whether the increment in blood pressure following administration of NSAIDs is sustained over time has not been established. Also, there is insufficient information regarding whether there are any special subgroups in the population who are at risk of developing hypertension during exposure to NSAIDs. Some data suggest that elderly people and patients with pre-existing hypertension carry an increased risk, notably when they are receiving antihypertensive treatment. Available data suggest that not all NSAIDs are equal as far as their effect on blood pressure is concerned. Sulindac, and perhaps also aspirin, seem to be less troublesome in this respect than other NSAIDs. This also applies to their effects on the kidney. Unfortunately, the mechanisms whereby NSAIDs may raise blood pressure are not fully understood. Interference with both the control of vascular resistance and the regulation of extracellular volume homeostasis has been incriminated, but several other putative mechanisms such as moderation of adrenergic activity or resetting of the baroreceptor response may also be involved. For the practising physician, it is wise to balance the risk of an increase in blood pressure against the expected benefit of treatment with an NSAID. In patients with (treated) hypertension and in the elderly, the benefits may not always outweigh the admittedly small risk. Should the physician nevertheless decide to prescribe an NSAID, frequent measurement of blood pressure may be necessary during the first weeks of treatment.

Effect of indomethacin on blood pressure control during treatment with nitrendipine

This study tested the hypothesis that treatment with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug will not alter the hypotensive effect of a dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist. Fifteen essential hypertensives (ages 58-80 years) had a supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) < 100 mmHg after 4 weeks monotherapy with nitrendipine 5-20 mg twice daily. They entered a double-blind randomised crossover study in which the addition of indomethacin 25 mg three times daily was compared with placebo in treatment phases each of 4 weeks duration. Subjects were seen weekly and measurements in the last 2 weeks of each phase were compared. Supine blood pressure (mean +/- SE) was higher in the indomethacin phase (158 +/- 4/80 +/- 2) than in the placebo phase (154 +/- 4/76 +/- 3) (p < 0.01 for DBP). In 6/15 (40%) of subjects the increase in supine diastolic blood pressure with indomethacin was > 5 mmHg. Plasma urea was also increased in the indomethacin phase: 7.6 +/- 0.6 mmol/l compared with placebo: 6.3 +/- 0.5 mmol/l (p < 0.001). The study has demonstrated that concurrent treatment with the NSAID indomethacin impairs the blood pressure lowering effect of the dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist nitrendipine. This increase in blood pressure with indomethacin in subjects treated with nitrendipine may represent either an independent pressor effect of indomethacin or a reduced vasodilator prostanoid contribution to the hypotensive effect of nitrendipine. This blood pressure increase may be sufficient to interfere significantly with clinical blood pressure control in some subjects.

Hemodynamic and humoral effects of low-dose aspirin in treated and untreated essential hypertensive patients

Aspirin at low doses is used as an inhibitor of platelet aggregation and is frequently administered to essential hypertensive patients with arterial thrombotic complications. However, it is unknown whether aspirin can modify blood pressure values either in treated or untreated hypertensive patients, as described for other non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Thus 30 patients. 10 with mild uncomplicated and untreated essential hypertension, 10 with essential hypertension under chronic treatment with captopril, 50 mg bid, and 10 with essential hypertension under chronic treatment with atenolol, 100 mg oid, received aspirin, 100 mg oid, and the corresponding placebo for one month, according to a double blind randomized cross-over design. At the end of each treatment, blood pressure, heart rate, generated serum thromboxane B2 and urinary excretion of thromboxane B2 and 6 keto prostaglandin F1 alpha and plasma renin activity were measured. Both in treated and untreated essential hypertensive patients, aspirin administration did not affect blood pressure, heart rate and urinary 6 keto prostaglandin F1 alpha, while it significantly reduced serum and urinary excretion of thromboxane B2 and plasma renin activity. In conclusion, while the present data confirm that low doses of aspirin selectively inhibit thromboxane B2 synthesis, they indicate that aspirin at 100 mg oid can be administered to treated and untreated essential hypertensive patients without any harmful effect on blood pressure values.

Bunazosin in patients with impaired hepatic or renal function

Following a single oral dose of 6 mg bunazosin, a novel alpha 1-adrenoceptor antagonist, the pharmacokinetics and blood pressure behaviour of 37 patients were studied. 12 subjects had normal renal and hepatic function (mean creatinine clearance (GFR) 107 +/- 240 ml/min, antipyrine clearance (AP Cl) 47 +/- 10.2 ml/min; x +/- SD), 13 subjects had impaired renal function (mean GFR 38 +/- 11.5 ml/min, AP Cl 39 +/- 4.0 ml/min), and 12 patients had liver cirrhosis which was confirmed by liver biopsy (mean AP Cl 18 +/- 9.2 ml/min, GFR 92 +/- 8.1 ml/min). The groups studied were matched for age and body weight. The area under the plasma level time curve (AUC0-infinity) of bunazosin increased from 96.6 +/- 48.7 micrograms.ml-1.h in the normals to 157.0 +/- 101.0 micrograms.ml-1.h in the liver patients and to 298.2 +/- 199.4 micrograms.ml-1.h in patients with impaired renal function (P < 0.05). As there was a close correlation between plasma levels and antihypertensive activity of bunazosin in the present study, dosage adjustment of the alpha 1-receptor blocker in patients with impaired liver and kidney function appears to be mandatory.

Enhanced blood pressure response to cyclooxygenase inhibition in salt-sensitive human essential hypertension

To evaluate the influence of salt sensitivity on the blood pressure response to oral indomethacin treatment, we studied 35 hospitalized essential hypertensive patients (24 men and 11 women, aged from 40 to 55 years). During a normal NaCl intake (120 mmol Na+ per day), patients were assigned to receive in a randomized double-blind fashion either 200 mg indomethacin (25 patients) or placebo (10 patients) for 5 days. Two weeks after the interruption of indomethacin treatment, during which the normal NaCl intake was continued, salt sensitivity was assessed by giving each patient a high (220 mmol Na+ per day for 10 days) and then a low (20 mmol Na+ per day for 10 days) NaCl diet. Blood pressure changes were evaluated, and the measurement taken at the end of the 2 weeks under normal sodium intake was considered baseline blood pressure. Patients were classified as salt sensitive when a diastolic blood pressure change of 10 mm Hg or more occurred after both low and high periods of sodium intake. In salt-resistant patients treated with indomethacin (n = 12, nine men and three women, mean age 50.5 +/- 3.7 years), neither blood pressure (systolic blood pressure from 150.8 +/- 11.2 to 154.6 +/- 9.3 mm Hg, NS; diastolic blood pressure from 99.3 +/- 2.1 to 101.1 +/- 4.4 mm Hg, NS) nor the urinary Na+ excretion (from 108.1 +/- 20.9 to 97.9 +/- 9.1 mmol/24 hr, NS) was significantly affected by the drug.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Counteraction of the vasodilator effects of enalapril by aspirin in severe heart failure

OBJECTIVES

This study was undertaken to determine if a standard dose of aspirin interacts relevantly with the circulatory effects of enalapril in severe heart failure.

BACKGROUND

The frequent association of heart failure with coronary artery disease confers potential for combined treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and the prostaglandin synthesis inhibitor aspirin, the pharmacodynamic actions of which are, in part, mutually opposed.

METHODS

In 18 patients, on 3 consecutive days, hemodynamic measurements were performed at baseline and 4 h after administration of a double placebo, enalapril (10 mg) plus placebo and enalapril plus aspirin (350 mg) according to a double-blind, randomized, crossover protocol.

RESULTS

Enalapril given before aspirin led to significant decreases in systemic vascular resistance, left ventricular filling pressure and total pulmonary resistance together with a significant increase in cardiac output. When given with or on the day after aspirin, enalapril did not elicit significant changes in any of these variables. There was a clear tendency to lower values for pulmonary artery pressure on all regimens, and slowing of the heart rate was incurred whether or not aspirin had been given. Chi-square analysis of the individual responses showed that the probability of effecting a decrease in systemic vascular resistance > or = 300 dynes.s.cm-5 was six times greater when enalapril was given without aspirin (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In severe heart failure, the prostaglandin synthesis inhibition by aspirin counteracts the systemic arterial vasodilation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition with enalapril and substantiates its dependence on the integrity of prostaglandin metabolism. Trends toward reductions of pulmonary artery pressure and slowing of the heart rate were still observed, presumably subsequent to lowered norepinephrine concentrations indicating maintenance of prostaglandin-independent actions of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition.

Acute effect of an alpha1-adrenoceptor antagonist on urinary sodium excretion, plasma atrial natriuretic peptide, arginine vasopressin, and the renin-aldosterone system in healthy subjects

To elucidate the mechanism underlying the sodium retention caused by alpha 1-adrenoceptor blockade in man, a placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind study has been made of the acute effects of bunazosin an alpha 1-antagonist, on urinary sodium excretion, atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), arginine vasopressin (AVP), and the renin-aldosterone system in 7 healthy men. A single oral dose of bunazosin 2.0 mg caused a significant reduction (P less than 0.05) in urinary sodium excretion after 0-2 h, 2-4 h, and 4-6 h. The mean values for plasma ANP, AVP, aldosterone, and cortisol concentrations at those times were similar after placebo and bunazosin, and plasma renin activity was significantly increased 2 and 4 h after bunazosin. Pretreatment with oral enalapril 10 mg, an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, did not prevent the bunazosin-induced reduction in urinary sodium excretion. There was a significant positive correlation between the drug-induced changes in blood pressure and urinary sodium excretion. The results suggest that ANP, AVP, and renin-aldosterone may play little role in the sodium retention caused by acute alpha 1-adrenoceptor blockade in man.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antihypertensives

Approximately 60 million people in the United States have hypertension (BP greater than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg), 40 million have arthritis clinically suitable for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy, and millions take NSAIDs for nonarthritic conditions, creating considerable potential for concomitant administration of NSAIDs and antihypertensive agents. It is estimated that more than 20 million people are on concurrent therapy. Most NSAIDs produce mild elevations of normal blood pressure levels and can partially or completely antagonize the effects of many antihypertensive drugs. The effect on blood pressure can vary from no effect to hypertensive crisis. In pooled studies, the average increase in mean arterial pressure was 10 mm Hg, and duration was short-lived or chronic. Significant interactions occur in about 1% of patients per year. The risk is greatest in the elderly, blacks, and patients with low-renin hypertension. NSAIDs may block the antihypertensive effects of thiazide and loop diuretics, beta-adrenergic blockers, alpha-adrenergic blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. No interactions have been reported with centrally acting alpha agonists or the calcium channel blockers. The mechanism of the hypertensive effects of NSAIDs seem primarily related to their ability to block the cyclo-oxygenase pathway of arachidonic acid metabolism, with a resultant decrease in prostaglandin formation. The prostaglandins are important in normal modulation of renal and systemic vascular dilatation, glomerular filtration, tubular secretion of salt and water, adrenergic neurotransmission, and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Blockade of salutary effects of prostaglandins by NSAIDs results in a complex series of events culminating in attenuation of the effects of many antihypertensive agents. High-risk patients treated with NSAIDs should be identified and have blood pressure, renal function, and serum potassium frequently monitored.

The problems and pitfalls of NSAID therapy in the elderly (Part II)

The elderly are most susceptible to pharmacokinetic drug interactions between various NSAIDs and anticoagulants, sulphonylurea hypoglycaemic agents, certain anticonvulsants, methotrexate, digoxin, aminoglycosides and lithium. Pharmacodynamic interactions between some NSAIDs and antihypertensive drugs, anticoagulants, sulphonylurea agents and other NSAIDs are also potentially significant in the elderly. Despite the finding that mean therapeutic responses of large groups of patients have been generally equivalent for the wide range of NSAIDs studied thus far, it is also apparent that marked variability exists in the response of individual patients to different NSAIDs. Subsequent dosage increments may predispose 'nonresponders' and some less sensitive 'responders' to toxicity from NSAIDs. This interindividual variability in response to NSAIDs may be contributed to by the differing physicochemical properties of NSAIDs, physician prescribing habits and patient expectations, variations in NSAID pharmacokinetics, and the differing effects of NSAIDs other than their common ability to inhibit prostaglandin synthesis. The principles for drug prescribing in the elderly are no different from those that should be applied to the prescribing of medication in any patient. The clinician should strive to make a diagnosis and should avoid treating symptoms in isolation. Critical assessment of the indication for prescribing NSAID therapy must include consideration of the available effective and safe alternatives. If an NSAID is commenced the lowest effective dose should be the desired goal, but after an appropriate trial it is acceptable clinical practice to employ an alternative NSAID. There is no justification for combination NSAID therapy. The progress of each patient must be carefully monitored, particularly during the first few months of treatment, while periodic review of the ongoing need for the NSAID is essential.

Nifedipine interactions in hypertensive patients

Nifedipine interactions in hypertensive patients have been evaluated, taking into account both the possibility that the inhibition of prostaglandin (PG) synthesis induced by non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can reduce the antihypertensive effect of nifedipine and the interactions of nifedipine with other antihypertensive drugs. While the inhibition of systemic and renal PG synthesis induced by indomethacin reduces the hypertensive effect of many drugs, it does not change the antihypertensive effect of nifedipine. The combination of two antihypertensive drugs with different mechanisms of action is often needed in the treatment of hypertensives, since it is well known that monotherapy is able to normalize BP in no more than 50% of mild to moderate hypertensives, and the rationale to combine two antihypertensive agents is based on the knowledge that their combination exerts an additive antihypertensive effect when compared with single-drug treatment. While it is well established that nifedipine can be usefully combined with beta blockers, ACE inhibitors, and clonidine, it is still controversial whether the combination of nifedipine with a thiazide diuretic exerts an additional antihypertensive effect. We have previously shown that the acute hypotensive effect of nifedipine in patients with chronic renal failure is greater during sodium repletion than during sodium depletion, and that chlorthalidone, compared with placebo, does not increase the hypotensive effect of nifedipine in essential hypertensives.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Drug interactions in hypertensive patients. Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and genetic considerations

Antihypertensive treatment has proven benefits, and the number of patients being treated with these drugs is significant. Hypertensive patients may have other medical illnesses for which they receive medications, and interactions between antihypertensive agents and other drugs is likely. Some of these interactions may lead to undesirable effects or even loss of blood pressure control. However, drug interactions can also be beneficial when 2 antihypertensive drugs with different pharmacological actions are prescribed in combination and with a clear therapeutic objective in mind. Clinicians should be aware of the mechanisms and the consequences of the different types of interaction in hypertensive patients, so that a desired pharmacological response can be achieved with the fewest side effects in the patients.

Lack of interaction between sulindac or naproxen and propranolol in hypertensive patients

Seventeen patients with hypertension and osteoarthritis participated in a single-blind crossover study comparing the effects of sulindac 200 mg twice daily, naproxen 500 mg twice daily, and placebo on blood pressure. All patients were treated for hypertension with propranolol monotherapy. Blood pressures were back-titrated to achieve a baseline diastolic blood pressure of 90 to 100 mm Hg while taking naproxen. There were no significant differences in mean sitting or standing blood pressures among the patients receiving naproxen, sulindac, or placebo treatments. There was no change in pulse, weight, or any of the laboratory measurements at the end of each treatment phase. These results suggest that neither sulindac nor naproxen interferes with propranolol therapy for uncomplicated hypertension.

Propranolol increases prostacyclin synthesis in patients with essential hypertension

We tested the hypothesis that vascular prostacyclin synthesis is increased by propranolol and could account for some of the drug's antihypertensive effect. We studied 10 white patients with mild essential hypertension in a randomized, double-blind design to assess the effects of indomethacin with or without the addition of propranolol on blood pressure and vascular prostacyclin biosynthesis, as assessed by the urinary excretion of the major enzymatically produced metabolite of prostacyclin, 2,3-dinor-6-keto-prostaglandin F1 alpha (PGF1 alpha), F1 alpha (PGF1 alpha), measured by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Seven patients responded to propranolol with a lowering of mean arterial blood pressure in both supine and upright postures. The fall in mean arterial blood pressure (-14.1 +/- 2.1 mm Hg sitting; -17.4 +/- 1.7 mm Hg supine) with propranolol alone was significantly greater than that produced when propranolol was given to patients receiving indomethacin (-7.8 +/- 1.9 mm Hg sitting; -7.7 +/- 3.0 mm Hg supine). Our drug-responsive patients demonstrated a significantly lower excretion rate of 2,3-dinor-6-keto-PGF1 alpha than was found in an age and sex-matched group of normal volunteers. With propranolol treatment, drug-responsive patients showed a significant increase in the excretion of 2,3-dinor-6-keto-PGF1 alpha, such that the mean excretion was not significantly different from that in normal volunteers. Indomethacin caused a significant rise in mean arterial blood pressure and a significant fall in 2,3-dinor-6-keto-PGF1 alpha excretion, and it blocked the rise in urinary 2,3-dinor-6-keto-PGF1 alpha associated with propranolol therapy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Interactions of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

As NSAIDs are commonly used in patients receiving concomitant drug therapy, there is a risk of clinically significant drug interactions. Important interactions with NSAIDs involve one or both of two major mechanisms: pharmacokinetic (e.g. lithium, phenytoin and barbiturates) and pharmacodynamic (e.g. antihypertensive agents, diuretics). Prescription of a NSAID should be preceded by a careful evaluation of any coexisting pathology (such as renal dysfunction or hypertension) or concurrent drug therapy (such as anticonvulsant or anticoagulant agents) which may predispose a patient to the development of an interaction with potentially severe effects.

Do nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs interfere with blood pressure control in hypertensive patients?

Exacerbation of hypertension by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in hypertensive patients remains controversial among physicians and investigators. Because of the many differences among studies of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and blood pressure control in patients with hypertension, the authors critically evaluated the published clinical evidence on this subject using standardized methodologic criteria. A search of the literature from 1965 to 1986 identified 31 relevant studies, of which only eight were double-blind randomized controlled trials that provided the most clinically useful information. Of these eight best-designed studies, five of the six that studied indomethacin concluded that it may interfere with antihypertensive effectiveness in selected patients with treated, stable hypertension. The remaining double-blind randomized studies included comparisons of other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Their limited results suggest that sulindac is less likely than piroxicam, naproxen or indomethacin to cause an attenuation of antihypertensive therapy. More research on this subject is needed, with greater attention to methodologic details and identification of predisposing risk factors for impairment of blood pressure control by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Interaction of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with antihypertensive and diuretic agents. Control of vascular reactivity by endogenous prostanoids

Indomethacin and some other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs partially antagonize the blood pressure lowering effect of drugs used to treat hypertension. They can also produce a mild elevation of blood pressure in normotensive individuals. The elevated arterial pressure caused by these agents is associated with increases in the vascular resistance of mainly the renal and splanchnic beds. This may be due to direct inhibition of the synthesis of vasodilator prostanoids, or it may be due to indirect potentiation of the action of the sympathetic nervous system or of angiotensin II. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs also cause renal retention of sodium and this probably contributes to their hypertensive effects. In humans, the sodium retention may involve increased reabsorption in the proximal tubule. Although a direct tubular action is possible, these drugs may change proximal sodium reabsorption by their vascular effects. However, the exact mechanism is not understood. These interactions are clinically significant and may complicate the treatment of common diseases.

Interactions between non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antihypertensives and diuretics

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase blood pressure and antagonise the effects of antihypertensive agents. They can cause salt and water retention and an increase in extracellular volume. NSAIDs also cause a decrease in prostaglandin synthesis in blood vessel walls which removes a direct vasodilatory influence and also increases the vascular response to vasoconstrictor stimuli. The hypotensive effects of frusemide and captopril are due in part to their stimulation of prostaglandin synthesis. Hence the antagonism of the hypotensive effect of these agents is probably due to NSAID-induced inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis. However, the interactions of NSAIDs with the other antihypertensive agents may not be related to inhibition of antihypertensive-induced release of prostaglandin but to independent and opposing actions of the NSAIDs on the various physiological mechanisms which regulate blood pressure. Clinicians should remain alert to these potential drug interactions.

Interference by sulphinpyrazone with the antihypertensive effects of oxprenolol

The interfering effect of sulphinpyrazone, a uricosuric agent which reduces the activity of cyclo-oxygenase, with the antihypertensive activity of oxprenolol, a non-cardioselective beta-blocker with sympathomimetic activity, has been evaluated. Ten patients with primary arterial hypertension of mild to moderate degree entered a randomized double-blind cross-over study versus placebo. They were given oxprenolol + placebo or oxprenolol + sulphinpyrazone for 15 days, and then the treatments were crossed-over for a further 15 days. Oxprenolol significantly reduced blood pressure (161 +/- 3/101 +/- 1 vs 149 +/- 4/96 +/- 2 mmHg) and heart rate (72 +/- 3 vs 66 +/- 3 beats/min). During administration of the combination with sulphinpyrazone the blood pressure increased to its pretreatment level (156 +/- 5/101 +/- 2 mmHg). The effect of oxprenolol on heart rate was not influenced by the combined treatment (67 +/- 6 beats/min). The results may be explained by 1) sulphinpyrazone-induced inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis, which could interfere with the antihypertensive activity of oxprenolol, or 2) sulphinpyrazone-induced acceleration of the metabolism of oxprenolol.

Interactions of NSAIDs with diuretics and beta-blockers mechanisms and clinical implications

Indomethacin attenuates the antihypertensive effect of both thiazide diuretics and beta-adrenoceptor blocking drugs. The mechanisms of these interactions are poorly understood but sodium and water retention, suppression of plasma renin activity, alterations in adrenoceptor sensitivity and impaired synthesis of vasodilator prostaglandins may all contribute to this effect. Other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may share this property of indomethacin but sulindac, which is a selective inhibitor of extrarenal prostaglandin synthesis, appears not to. This may have important clinical and theoretical implications. Clinicians must beware of this potential interaction in any patient receiving treatment for hypertension. NSAIDs may also inhibit the natriuretic response to diuretics with resultant adverse effects in patients with heart failure and other forms of oedema. NSAIDs may also have adverse nephrotoxic effects which may be exacerbated by diuretic therapy.

Alpha and beta-blockade and beta-stimulation in Raynaud's syndrome: a double-blind, placebo controlled, single dose study

We examined in a double blind fashion and placebo controlled the effects of some alpha and beta adrenergic receptor agonists and antagonists on the recovery of finger skin temperature 12 min after finger cooling (5 min waterbath for both hands) in twelve patients with Raynaud's syndrome. A favourable effect was established on phenoxybenzamine 20 mg as compared to placebo. A significant but rather small effect on orciprenaline 10 mg. The beta-agonists prenalterol (10 mg) and terbutaline (5 mg) did not influence the recovery of finger skin temperature. The beneficial effect of phenoxybenzamine 20 mg was not influenced by the addition of beta-agonists (prenalterol 10 mg or terbutaline 5 mg) or a beta-blocker (propranolol 40 mg). The beta-agonists terbutaline and orciprenaline caused a fall in diastolic pressure and an increase in heart rate. These effects presumably were connected with one collapse and three near-collapses. On alpha- and beta-blocker (phenoxybenzamine and propranolol) a decrease in systolic pressure appeared, whereas diastolic pressure did not significantly differ from the placebo value. While physical exercise is considered to exacerbate the hypotensive effect of alpha-blockers, a fall in blood pressure during physical exercise could not be established in our experiments after the addition of propranolol to the alpha-blocker phenoxybenzamine. Our results suggest that an alpha-blocker is a good choice in Raynaud's syndrome, whereas the addition of a beta-blocker may have some advantages.

The role of prostaglandins in human hypertension

A large body of evidence supports the concept that prostaglandins (PG) are importantly involved in arterial pressure regulation. Various PGs, especially PGE2 and prostacyclin (PGI2) may influence blood pressure through control of vascular tone, sodium excretion, and renin release. Inhibition of PG synthesis by nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID) augments the vasoconstrictor response to exogenous pressors such as angiotensin II, arginine vasopressin (AVP), and fludrocortisone. The acute administration of NSAID to either normotensive or untreated hypertensive subjects results in an increase in arterial pressure and peripheral resistance; long-term administration, however, is associated with little or no change in blood pressure, possibly because of a reduction in cardiac output. Although NSAID have little influence on blood pressure in normotensive subjects or untreated hypertensives, inhibition of PG synthesis blunts or abolishes the antihypertensive effect of most antihypertensive agents. NSAID antagonize the vasodepressor action of diuretics, beta-adrenoreceptor antagonists, vasodilators, and converting enzyme inhibitors. Consequently, potent NSAID should be used with caution, if at all, during treatment of hypertensive patients. Numerous studies have examined renal PG production in essential hypertension (EH). The majority have demonstrated reduced basal and stimulated urinary PGE2 excretion in EH compared to normotensive subjects, but there is substantial overlap. Nevertheless, renal PGE2 synthesis is significantly decreased in approximately one-third of patients with EH. A recent innovative approach to arterial pressure regulation has focused on dietary supplementation with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), especially linoleic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid. Several groups have demonstrated that long-term dietary supplementation with PUFA reduces blood pressure in both normotensive individuals and in patients with EH.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Clinical pharmacokinetics of prazosin--1985

Prazosin is a selective alpha 1-adrenoceptor antagonist which is useful alone or in combination for the treatment of hypertension and heart failure. Unlike many other antihypertensive drugs, the action of prazosin appears to be closely related to its concentration in plasma or whole blood. Prazosin is variably absorbed, is subject to first-pass metabolism, and is eliminated almost entirely as metabolites of much lower hypotensive activity than the parent drug. Prazosin is highly bound to plasma and tissue proteins. The influences of renal, hepatic and cardiac disease on the disposition of prazosin are reviewed, as are the effects of pregnancy and ageing. The optimum use of prazosin in clinical practice depends on an understanding of the pharmacokinetic properties of the drug.

Flurbiprofen interaction with single doses of atenolol and propranolol

In patients with mild hypertension, flurbiprofen in a dose of 100 mg daily for 7 days attenuated the hypotensive effect of a single dose of propranolol 80 mg but not of atenolol 100 mg. The attenuation was not due to an effect on the pharmacokinetic profile of either propranolol or atenolol. An alternative explanation is required.

Clinical pharmacological studies with prazosin during pregnancy complicated by hypertension

The disposition and effect of orally administered prazosin have been studied in eight women with hypertension which was uncontrolled by beta-adrenoceptor blockade during the last trimester of pregnancy. Results were compared with healthy men of similar age. The median time to peak concentration was 165 min during pregnancy and 120 min in the men (P less than 0.04). Area under the concentration vs time curve was 3914 ng l-1 min in pregnancy and 2439 ng l-1 min in the men (P less than 0.06). Mean elimination half-life was 171 min in the pregnant women and 130 min in the men (P less than 0.01). Blood pressure was lowered by prazosin in both supine and standing positions. Blood pressure control remained satisfactory in six of the eight women and the median prolongation of pregnancy was 22 days. Neonatal outcome was satisfactory and all babies are developing normally. We conclude that prazosin is more slowly, but apparently more completely, absorbed during pregnancy and that its half-life is slightly prolonged. Prazosin appears to be both effective and safe when used during the last trimester to control blood pressure.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and blood pressure

The effects of aspirin (1950 mg/day orally) or indomethacin (75 mg/day orally) on blood pressure were investigated in normotensive volunteers and hypertensive patients receiving antihypertensive medication. Aspirin (1950 mg/day) did not change blood pressure or body weight in normotensive or treated hypertensive subjects. No significant change in plasma renin concentration was seen with aspirin (1950 mg/day) in treated hypertensive subjects. Indomethacin (75 mg/day) significantly increased blood pressure in normotensive subjects and treated hypertensive subjects. Body weight increased significantly in the treated hypertensive subjects but not normotensive subjects. In treated hypertensive subjects indomethacin (75 mg/day) did not change plasma volume, but significantly decreased plasma renin concentration.

Prazosin first dose phenomenon during combined treatment with a beta-adrenoceptor blocker in hypertensive patients

1 The antihypertensive effect of prazosin has been studied in three groups of hypertensive patients. 2 The drug caused a significant reduction of blood pressure both as monotherapy and combined with alprenolol. 3 The effect of prazosin on blood pressure was more marked at the first dose and especially in combination with alprenolol. 4 No pharmacokinetic interaction between prazosin and alprenolol was observed. 5 Prazosin exhibits an exaggerated first dose effect together with alprenolol. Smaller starting doses of prazosin in combination therapy with beta-adrenoceptor blockers are warranted.

Interaction between oxprenolol and indomethacin on blood pressure in essential hypertensive patients

A double-blind, cross-over study in 16 patients with essential hypertension was carried out, to evaluate any possible interference by indomethacin, a known prostaglandin-synthetase inhibitor, with the antihypertensive effect of oxprenolol, a non-selective beta-adrenoceptor blocking agent. Both indomethacin and oxprenolol, as well as the two drugs combined, inhibited plasma renin activity; no change was found in urinary sodium excretion or body weight. Oxprenolol alone caused a highly significant decrease in the systolic ( - 10.4 mmHg, p less than 0.001), diastolic ( - 7.4 mmHg, p less than 0.001) and mean ( - 7.7 mmHg, p less than 0.01) blood pressures, whereas indomethacin did not influence blood pressure. When the two drugs were given in combination, blood pressure decreased (systolic: - 5.9 mmHg; diastolic: - 4.0 mmHg; mean: - 4.6 mmHg), but the changes induced in blood pressure were reduced by about 50% when compared with those in the oxprenolol alone period. The data show that indomethacin seems to interfere with the antihypertensive effect of oxprenolol, by an action which may be due to the inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis.

Clinical experience with guanfacine in long-term treatment of hypertension

1 Of 662 hypertensive patients originally selected for long-term treatment, 580 were evaluated after one year and 169 continued for a second year of treatment with guanfacine.

2 There were 257 women (mean age 52.1 yr) and 323 men (mean age 51.7 yr) in the trial: 499 (86%) suffered from essential, 55 (9%) from renal, 22 (4%) from renovascular and 4 (1%) from other forms of hypertension; 200 (34%) were classified as having mild, 275 (47.5%) moderate and 101 (17.5%) severe hypertension. In four patients the degree of severity was not specified. Nearly 40% of all patients had signs of left ventricular hypertrophy, and in 71% a pathological ocular fundus was found; 72% had been pretreated with antihypertensive drugs, 56% suffered from a concomitant disease and 18% had signs of heart failure; 224 patients were classified as having a sedentary mode of life, 316 were moderate and 27 heavy physical workers. In 13 no classification was given.

3 Whenever possible, a wash-out period of 3 weeks with a placebo identical in appearance with the active drug was carried out at the beginning and at the end of the 12-month treatment period to establish the pretreatment blood pressure and the possible withdrawal phenomena after therapy discontinuation. At the beginning, two doses of guanfacine 1 mg were administered daily and the dose was successively increased. A diuretic was added if necessary. To non-responders, a β-adrenoceptor-blocker or a vasodilator was given.

4 In all trial groups a statistically significant decrease in blood pressure was found. The average reduction in mean arterial pressure was 16% at the end of the first year and 17% at the end of the second year. Normalization of blood pressure was achieved in 54% of the patients at the end of the first year and in 66% after the second year of treatment.

5 In patients with hypertension of a higher degree of severity, combined treatment was used more often and higher doses of guanfacine were administered; monotherapy was used predominantly in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

6 The mean daily dose of guanfacine at the end of the first year was 3.4 mg for monotherapy and 6 mg for combined treatment. After 2 yr, these values were 3.2 mg and 5 mg, respectively.

7 With the once-daily and twice-daily dosage schedules the same antihypertensive effect as with the three times daily dose regimen was observed, with a higher normalization rate and fewer side-effects. Moreover, the normalization rate was higher with doses up to 3 mg than with doses in the range 4-25 mg. This applied to both monotherapy and combined treatment.

8 It is suggested that low doses of guanfacine are more suitable for the treatment of patients with established but uncomplicated hypertension, because of the lack of peripheral α-mimetic effects is the lower dose range. In view of the relatively long half-life of guanfacine, it is recommended that the drug be given only once daily or at the most twice daily.

9 The ECG analysis after one year of treatment revealed signs of regression in left-ventricular size. Ophthalmological examinations showed no deterioration, and there were no pathological changes in laboratory values.

10 No untoward reactions were seen when guanfacine was combined with cardiac glycosides, antidiabetic agents, anticoagulants or psychotropic drugs.