1994•Journal of HypertensionRequires access

Within-patient correlation between the antihypertensive effects of atenolol, lisinopril and nifedipine

Stephen Attwood, Rosemary Bird, Kenneth Burch, Barbara Casadei, Andrew J.S. Coats, James Conway, Martin G. Dawes, David Ebbs, Andrew A. Farmer, John Robinson, Clive Sherlock

Open publisher page 46 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there are definable subgroups of patients with essential hypertension who respond specifically to particular antihypertensive drugs. DESIGN: Randomized cross-over comparison of the antihypertensive effect of 50 mg atenolol per day, 10 mg lisinopril per day and 20 mg nifedipine retard twice a day. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was used to assess the blood pressure level both for recruitment and at the end of each treatment period. The treatment periods lasted 4 weeks and were preceded by 4 weeks of placebo. PATIENTS: Seventy-two untreated hypertensive patients with a mean age of 52 (SD 8.4) years were recruited from six general practices and from the hospital outpatient clinic. Sixty-eight patients completed the trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To assess the within-patient correlations among the blood pressure responses to each drug and explore the possible role of simple characteristics, such as the initial blood pressure, plasma renin concentration and age, in identifying the responders to a particular drug. RESULTS: Systolic/diastolic blood pressure fell significantly with each agent (P < 0.001): atenolol reduced it by 16.3 +/- 13.3/9.9 +/- 8.8, lisinopril by 14.8 +/- 15.0/9.4 +/- 9.1 and nifedipine by 11.6 +/- 12.3/6.7 +/- 8.3 mmHg. There was a low degree of correlation between the changes in blood pressure with the three drugs in individual patients. With each drug there was a small percentage (8.9-14.7%) of non-responders. The initial level of systolic blood pressure was weakly correlated with the antihypertensive effect of nifedipine (r = 0.47, P < 0.001) and plasma renin concentration was related to the effect of atenolol (r = 0.32, P < 0.01). Age did not predict the blood pressure response to any agent. CONCLUSIONS: The low level of the correlation between the blood pressure changes with the three drugs suggests that different mechanisms may be involved in the aetiology of essential hypertension. Plasma renin concentration and the initial level of systolic blood pressure contribute only weakly to the identification of responders to the three drugs.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there are definable subgroups of patients with essential hypertension who respond specifically to particular antihypertensive drugs. DESIGN: Randomized cross-over comparison of the antihypertensive effect of 50 mg atenolol per day, 10 mg lisinopril per day and 20 mg nifedipine retard twice a day. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was used to assess the blood pressure level both for recruitment and at the end of each treatment period. The treatment periods lasted 4 weeks and were preceded by 4 weeks of placebo. PATIENTS: Seventy-two untreated hypertensive patients with a mean age of 52 (SD 8.4) years were recruited from six general practices and from the hospital outpatient clinic. Sixty-eight patients completed the trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To assess the within-patient correlations among the blood pressure responses to each drug and explore the possible role of simple characteristics, such as the initial blood pressure, plasma renin concentration and age, in identifying the responders to a particular drug. RESULTS: Systolic/diastolic blood pressure fell significantly with each agent (P < 0.001): atenolol reduced it by 16.3 +/- 13.3/9.9 +/- 8.8, lisinopril by 14.8 +/- 15.0/9.4 +/- 9.1 and nifedipine by 11.6 +/- 12.3/6.7 +/- 8.3 mmHg. There was a low degree of correlation between the changes in blood pressure with the three drugs in individual patients. With each drug there was a small percentage (8.9-14.7%) of non-responders. The initial level of systolic blood pressure was weakly correlated with the antihypertensive effect of nifedipine (r = 0.47, P < 0.001) and plasma renin concentration was related to the effect of atenolol (r = 0.32, P < 0.01). Age did not predict the blood pressure response to any agent. CONCLUSIONS: The low level of the correlation between the blood pressure changes with the three drugs suggests that different mechanisms may be involved in the aetiology of essential hypertension. Plasma renin concentration and the initial level of systolic blood pressure contribute only weakly to the identification of responders to the three drugs.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 46 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there are definable subgroups of patients with essential hypertension who respond specifically to particular antihypertensive drugs. DESIGN: Randomized cross-over comparison of the antihypertensive effect of 50 mg atenolol per day, 10 mg lisinopril per day and 20 mg nifedipine retard twice a day. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was used to assess the blood pressure level both for recruitment and at the end of each treatment period. The treatment periods lasted 4 weeks and were preceded by 4 weeks of placebo. PATIENTS: Seventy-two untreated hypertensive patients with a mean age of 52 (SD 8.4) years were recruited from six general practices and from the hospital outpatient clinic. Sixty-eight patients completed the trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To assess the within-patient correlations among the blood pressure responses to each drug and explore the possible role of simple characteristics, such as the initial blood pressure, plasma renin concentration and age, in identifying the responders to a particular drug. RESULTS: Systolic/diastolic blood pressure fell significantly with each agent (P < 0.001): atenolol reduced it by 16.3 +/- 13.3/9.9 +/- 8.8, lisinopril by 14.8 +/- 15.0/9.4 +/- 9.1 and nifedipine by 11.6 +/- 12.3/6.7 +/- 8.3 mmHg. There was a low degree of correlation between the changes in blood pressure with the three drugs in individual patients. With each drug there was a small percentage (8.9-14.7%) of non-responders. The initial level of systolic blood pressure was weakly correlated with the antihypertensive effect of nifedipine (r = 0.47, P < 0.001) and plasma renin concentration was related to the effect of atenolol (r = 0.32, P < 0.01). Age did not predict the blood pressure response to any agent. CONCLUSIONS: The low level of the correlation between the blood pressure changes with the three drugs suggests that different mechanisms may be involved in the aetiology of essential hypertension. Plasma renin concentration and the initial level of systolic blood pressure contribute only weakly to the identification of responders to the three drugs.

Key concepts: Medicine, Atenolol, Lisinopril, Blood pressure, Nifedipine, Ambulatory blood pressure, Placebo, Antihypertensive drug

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Within-patient correlation between the antihypertensive effects of atenolol, lisinopril and nifedipine — Research Paper | ScholarLens