Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0085580 (essential hypertension)
 14,686 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

The study was carried out on 23 samples of amniotic fluid taken (by amniocentesis) between 35th and 39th week from pregnant women with arterial hypertension (13 cases of hypertension induced by pregnancy, 5 cases of primary hypertension and 5 cases of hypertension accompanying renal diseases). Seven women undergoing the study gave birth to newborns with symptoms of delayed intrauterine growth below 16 centiles (group examined), 16 mothers gave birth to eutrophic babies (control group). The amniotic fluid of the two groups was studied for the following biochemical indexes: alanine and aspartate aminotransferase alkaline total and thermostabile phosphatase, ceruloplasmin, alpha-amylase, general protein, beta-lipoproteins, cholesterol, uric acid, urea and creatinine. No significant changes were found in the parameters determined between the group examined and the control group.
 ...
PMID:[Biochemical studies of the amniotic fluid in arterial hypertension in relation to intrauterine growth retardation. I. Parameters of the proteins, lipids, enzymes and renal maturity]. 263 82

In 1984 the General Practitioner Hypertension Study Group undertook a rescreening of their patient population, looking for patients who still had untreated mild to moderate essential hypertension. Suitable patients were entered into a clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of nicardipine (a calcium antagonist) and amiloride + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (moduretic). The study included one year of long-term follow-up. Both drugs significantly lowered BP in both the short and long term. Numbers and percentages of patients from each group reporting adverse experiences were similar in the short term, but in the long term the frequency of adverse event reporting was much lower with nicardipine treatment than with amiloride + HCTZ treatment (2/10 versus 9/17). Treatment with amiloride + HCTZ led to elevations in serum levels of cholesterol, uric acid and urea, which were maintained at one year, whilst no abnormalities in blood biochemistry were seen in patients treated with nicardipine. In conclusion we have found that nicardipine compares very favourably with amiloride + HCTZ in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertensive patients.
 ...
PMID:A randomised comparative trial of nicardipine versus amiloride and hydrochlorothiazide in mild to moderate hypertension. A report from the General Practitioner Hypertension Study Group. 266 25

The possibility that certain antihypertensive drugs produce metabolic alterations in patients with hypertension treated during one year, has been prospectively assessed in 40 patients with essential hypertension with matched age and blood pressure readings. Four groups (Gr) of 10 patients each were studied. Group 1 received 100 mg/day of atenolol (AT), group 2 received 5 mg of amiloride and 50 mg of hydrochlorothiazide (4 tablets per week), group 3 received 40 mg/day of nifedipine retard (NF) and group 4 received 50 mg/day of captopril (CP). The parameters studied prior and after one month of treatment were the following: urea, creatinine, uric acid, Na+, K+, Ca+, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, glycemia, blood pressure (BP), pulse rate (PR) and body weight. Both group 1 and 2 showed significantly increased total cholesterol (p less than 0.001 and p less than 0.01 respectively) as well as decreased HDL levels. In addition, group 2 had significantly increased levels of uric acid, glycemia and triglycerides (p less than 0.01). In the latter groups no significant changes were found within body weight, lipid levels, glycemia, uric acid ruling-out weight gain as a possible cause for these adverse metabolic effects. Pulse rate decreased in group 1. Group 3 pulse rate significantly increased (p less than 0.001) However, no other changes were significant. No significant biochemical or pulse rate readings were found in group 4. BP was best controlled in groups 1, 3 and 4.
 ...
PMID:[Biochemical plasma changes in essential hypertension patients treated for a year]. 277 9

In a multicenter, double-blind comparison of acebutolol and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure, 95 to 114 mm Hg) in 182 and 178 patients, respectively, each agent reduced systolic and diastolic pressures to a similar significant degree: acebutolol, 15.9 and 14.9 mm Hg; hydrochlorothiazide, 15.2 and 13.3 mm Hg (p less than 0.001 vs baseline). Acebutolol significantly reduced heart rate by 8.9 bpm at the end of dose titration (p = 0.001), with no further decrease seen during maintenance. Fourteen patients on each treatment regimen were discontinued from the study because of side effects. However, significantly more hydrochlorothiazide patients experienced side effects of arrhythmia, anorexia, and flatulence; in addition, more hydrochlorothiazide patients developed abnormal levels of serum glucose, uric acid, blood urea nitrogen, serum potassium, and chloride. In a single-center study of patients who remained hypertensive while receiving diuretics, six of nine patients receiving acebutolol concomitantly with a diuretic responded (seated diastolic blood pressure reduced below 90 mm Hg), whereas no patients receiving placebo and diuretic concomitantly responded (p less than 0.01). Patients taking both acebutolol and diuretic had significant reductions in diastolic blood pressure (11 mm Hg) and heart rate (16 bpm) compared with those taking diuretic alone (p less than 0.05, less than 0.01) and those taking both placebo and diuretic (p less than 0.05). No significant side effects were noted. Acebutolol is as effective as hydrochlorothiazide as monotherapy for mild to moderate essential hypertension and, in addition, is effective when added to a diuretic in patients who remain hypertensive while taking diuretics.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Comparison of acebutolol and hydrochlorothiazide in essential hypertension. 285 81

Twenty patients with moderate to severe essential hypertension were randomized in a paralleled, double-blind, 22-week study of captopril (ten) and enalapril (ten) following four weeks of hydrochlorothiazide (50 mg/d) baseline treatment. The captopril group was administered 25 mg tid and increased to 100 mg tid, while the enalapril group began with 5 mg bid and increased to 20 mg bid, depending on the patient's blood pressure (BP) response. Methyldopa, 250 mg to 500 mg bid and 1,000 mg bid, was administered to patients in both groups if BP was not adequately controlled. Patients were seen every two weeks for BP monitoring and metabolic evaluation. Each group showed a significant and equal decrease in BP, with the effect being the greatest on the diastolic pressure, supine and upright. Of the 20 patients, ten (four whites and six blacks) required methyldopa for adequate BP control. Four patients, two from each group, developed reversible prerenal azotemia (BUN [blood urea nitrogen] congruent to 50 mg/dL). No other clinical or metabolic side effects were noted. We concluded that captopril and enalapril were equally effective in lowering BP in the dosages given; no racial differences in BP response were noted, although more black patients required the addition of methyldopa for adequate BP control; and both drugs were safe and well tolerated.
 ...
PMID:A comparative study of captopril and enalapril in patients with severe hypertension. 298 58

In 40 patients with essential hypertension, enalapril was compared with propranolol as an antihypertensive agent in a double-blind study. The patients were randomly given either enalapril 5-10-20 mg bid or propranolol 40-80-120 mg bid in a treatment consisting of step-by-step increases in dosage. When the diastolic blood pressure remained greater than 90 mm Hg on the highest dosage, hydrochlorothiazide was added. Both enalapril and propranolol reduced blood pressure, although the patients tended to achieve lower blood pressures while on enalapril. More patients on propranolol required additional diuretic therapy than patients on enalapril. Propranolol reduced heart rate; with enalapril there were no changes in heart rate. Both drugs increased serum potassium and urea. Plasma renin substrate was reduced by enalapril, but raised by propranolol. Enalapril increased plasma renin activity and angiotensin I, while propranolol reduced both. Converting enzyme activity was lowered with enalapril but was unchanged with propranolol. Both drugs reduced angiotensin II. Plasma aldosterone concentration was more suppressed with propranolol than with enalapril.
 ...
PMID:Comparison of enalapril and propranolol in essential hypertension. 300 62

Patients with moderate to severe essential hypertension (mean untreated supine blood pressure 190/112 mm Hg) received once daily enalapril 20-40 mg or atenolol 50-100 mg, supplemented if required by hydrochlorothiazide 25-100 mg, in a randomized observer-blind trial. Both regimens produced a highly significant reduction in supine and standing blood pressure. There was no significant difference in the antihypertensive effects of enalapril and atenolol when they were used as monotherapy. After hydrochlorothiazide was added to patients not achieving 'target' blood pressure, the fall in systolic pressure was significantly greater in the enalapril group than in the atenolol group, despite similar dosage of hydrochlorothiazide in the two groups. At the end of 6 months' treatment, a supine diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or below was achieved in 74% of patients on enalapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and 56% of patients on atenolol plus hydrochlorothiazide. This difference was not statistically significant. A small rise in plasma urea and creatinine was observed in the enalapril group and a small rise of urea only in the atenolol group. These changes were statistically significant but of uncertain clinical importance. This study confirms that once daily enalapril and atenolol, both alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide, are effective drugs in the management of moderate to severe hypertension.
 ...
PMID:Enalapril in moderate to severe hypertension: a comparison with atenolol. 301 65

In a double blind placebo controlled randomised parallel study the antihypertensive activity and adverse biochemical effects of three doses of cyclopenthiazide were evaluated in patients with mild essential hypertension that had been recently diagnosed or was being treated with a single drug. After a four week placebo washout period 53 patients with diastolic blood pressures between 90-110 mm Hg were randomly assigned to 50, 125, or 500 micrograms cyclopenthiazide or matching placebo for an eight week period of treatment. Blood pressure was measured in the patients' homes by the same observer every two weeks. Serum urea, electrolytes, urate, and creatinine concentrations and 24 hour urinary sodium excretion were monitored every four weeks and serum magnesium concentration and plasma renin activity at the end of the washout and treatment periods. After eight weeks of treatment systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly reduced in patients taking 125 and 500 micrograms cyclopenthiazide when compared with those taking placebo. The decrement in serum potassium concentration (0.6 mmol/l) and increase in serum urate concentration 0.06 mmol/l) were greatest with the 500 micrograms dose, the increase in serum urate concentration alone being significant. No change in serum magnesium concentration or 24 hour urinary sodium excretion was noted with any dose of cyclopenthiazide. Only the 500 micrograms dose of cyclopenthiazide significantly increased the mean plasma renin activity (1.8 (95% confidence interval 0.2 to 3.4)-5.4 (3.9 to 6.8) nmol angiotensin I/l/h); the other doses like the placebo had no effect. Cyclopenthiazide 125 micrograms, a dose lower than is currently marketed, produced a similar hypotensive response to 500 micrograms of the drug without upsetting the biochemical profile.
 ...
PMID:The case for low dose diuretics in hypertension: comparison of low and conventional doses of cyclopenthiazide. 304 3

Twenty-four black men with mild to moderate essential hypertension were enrolled in an open-label trial comparing the efficacy of two doses of Capozide (captopril and hydrochlorothiazide). All antihypertensive drugs were discontinued and patients then received placebo for 2 weeks. Twenty-two patients, mean age 59.1 +/- 14.3 years, with sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) 92 to 110 mm Hg, entered the 6-week active-drug phase. Eleven patients (Group A) were randomized to Capozide 25/15 and 11 (Group B) to Capozide 50/15. Baseline mean BPs were 151.0/100.7 mm Hg in Group A and 153.1/100.7 mm Hg in Group B. At week 6, mean BPs were 128.7/84.4 mm Hg in Group A and 126.8/82.7 mm Hg in Group B. Uric acid, blood urea nitrogen and creatinine levels rose slightly in both groups. There were no adverse events. Eighteen patients had normal BPs at study completion. Twice-daily Capozide treatment is effective and well tolerated in blacks; patients responded equally well to both doses.
 ...
PMID:Treating black hypertensives with capozide. 304 29

In a double-blind randomized multicenter study the antihypertensive efficacy of 2.5 mg torasemide (1- isopropyl-3-([4-(3-methyl-phenylamino)pyridine]-3-sulfony)urea) and 2.5 mg indapamide was compared in patients with essential hypertension, known as responders to diuretic therapy. After a wash-out period of 4 weeks patients with a sitting diastolic blood pressure of 100-115 mmHg were included in the 12-weeks active treatment period. After 4 weeks of treatment with a once daily 2.5 mg dose of each drug, doses could once be doubled if blood-pressure decrease was considered to be insufficient. 66 patients qualified for the statistical evaluation, 32 in the torasemide group and 34 in the indapamide group. In these patients both drugs caused a similar fall in blood pressure leading to a normalization of blood pressure in most of the patients. Serum parameters remained within normal limits. Only serum potassium was significantly lower with 2.5 mg indapamide compared to 2.5 mg torasemide at the end of the study. No side effects were reported for both drugs. As the lowest effective dose of a diuretic should be used for the treatment of hypertensive patients, 2.5 mg torasemide, which is below the threshold dose for significantly enhanced diuresis, seems to be the recommended dose for antihypertensive treatment.
 ...
PMID:Comparative study on the antihypertensive efficacy of torasemide and indapamide in patients with essential hypertension. 328 33


<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >>