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)

In a randomized, parallel, double-blind study, lisinopril (n = 412) reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure more than nifedipine did (n = 416) after ten weeks treatment in patients (40-70 years) with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Lisinopril was tolerated better than nifedipine, with fewer withdrawals. Adverse experiences reported after a general question on discomfort were significantly lower for lisinopril than for nifedipine. Questions referring specifically to symptoms revealed higher frequency of coughing with lisinopril, while flushing, edema, palpitations, dizziness, tiredness and rash were reported more frequently with nifedipine. Quality of life was similarly assessed by both patients and spouses. No significant differences in well-being during treatment were found for either drug, except in the case of the highest dose level of nifedipine, which caused a deterioration of well-being.
 ...
PMID:[Treatment with lisinopril or nifedipine in essential hypertension. A Norwegian multicenter study of the effect, tolerance and quality of life of 828 patients]. 133 84

The efficacy and tolerability of Prinivil and Procardia XL were compared in 135 (67 black, 68 white) patients with mild to moderate uncomplicated essential hypertension. The goal of therapy was to achieve and maintain a supine diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) of > 90 mmHg or a decrease in SDBP > or = 10 mmHg. Patients received Prinivil 10 to 40 mg once daily or Procardia XL 30 to 120 mg once daily during a titration period of 2 to 8 weeks to achieve the goal blood pressure before a 4-week maintenance period. The mean baseline supine systolic/diastolic blood pressures were 151/97 mmHg in patients receiving Prinivil and 153/99 mmHg in patients receiving Procardia XL. Ninety-one percent of patients receiving Prinivil and 95% of those receiving Procardia XL achieved SDBP control at the end of titration therapy. At the end of the maintenance treatment period, 79% of patients receiving Prinivil and 80% of those receiving Procardia XL had SDBP control. Mean decreases in SDBP from baseline were comparable for both treatment groups. At the end of the titration period, mean decreases were 9.6 mmHg in patients receiving Prinivil and 11.3 mmHg in patients receiving Procardia XL; at the end of the maintenance period, mean decreases were 10.8 mmHg and 12.1 mmHg, respectively. There were no differences in treatment responses in either the black or white hypertensive subgroups. Thus both drugs were equally effective in black and white patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Both drugs were generally well tolerated, but the number of adverse experiences requiring discontinuation of therapy was significantly higher (P = 0.03) in patients receiving Procardia XL.
 ...
PMID:Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of Prinivil and Procardia XL in black and white hypertensive patients. 133 3

The antihypertensive and hemodynamic effects of lisinopril and atenolol were evaluated in 21 patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Left ventricular systolic and diastolic performances were assessed prior to and following treatment by first-pass radionuclide cineangiography at rest and during peak upright bicycle exercise. Both lisinopril and atenolol treatment significantly reduced the blood pressure. Lisinopril therapy was associated with a reduction in systemic vascular resistance and left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes but no change in stroke volume, cardiac output, peak ejection rate, peak filling rate, time to peak ejection rate, or time to peak filling rate. In contrast, atenolol therapy was associated with an increase in end-diastolic volume and stroke volume but no change in cardiac output; the left ventricular peak ejection and peak filling rates were decreased by atenolol treatment. Although both lisinopril and atenolol each significantly reduced the blood pressure, lisinopril had no effect on left ventricular systolic or diastolic performance; in contrast, atenolol decreased both systolic and diastolic parameters of ventricular performance. Left ventricular function may be affected in significantly different ways despite apparent similarities in blood pressure control in patients who respond to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition or beta-adrenergic receptor blockade. Differences in hemodynamic response to an antihypertensive agent may be important in the selection of a drug for the treatment of subsets of patients with cardiac function abnormalities.
 ...
PMID:Comparison of the cardiac and hemodynamic effects of lisinopril and atenolol in patients with hypertension: therapeutic implications. 138 Oct 12

In a multicenter, parallel, double-blind study, lisinopril, a new converting enzyme inhibitor, was compared with atenolol in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension. Four hundred ninety patients were randomized to once-a-day treatment with lisinopril 20 mg or atenolol 50 mg for 4 weeks, and the doses of lisinopril or atenolol were increased at 4-week intervals up to 80 mg or 200 mg, respectively, if sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) was not well controlled. Lisinopril and atenolol reduced SDBP to a similar extent. All reductions from baseline in sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressure were significant (p less than 0.01). Lisinopril produced a significantly greater reduction (p less than 0.01) in sitting systolic blood pressure (SSBP) than atenolol. The predominant reduction in SSBP could not be explained on the basis of age, race, or severity of hypertension. It is suggested that the increase in arterial compliance reported for converting enzyme inhibitors could explain the predominant decrease in systolic blood pressure.
 ...
PMID:Lisinopril versus atenolol: decrease in systolic versus diastolic blood pressure with converting enzyme inhibition. 165 94

In a randomized, parallel, double-blind study, lisinopril (n = 412; average dose 18.8 mg) reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure (change = 20.2/13.8 mmHg; P less than 0.01/P less than 0.01) more than nifedipine (n = 416; average dose 37.4 mg; change = 13.3/11.2 mmHg) after 10-week treatment in patients, aged 40-70 years, with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Lisinopril was better tolerated than nifedipine. The withdrawals from treatment were fewer in the lisinopril-treated group (11 versus 46; P less than 0.01). The frequency of adverse experiences reported after a general question of discomfort was significantly lower for lisinopril than for nifedipine (P less than 0.01). When questioned on specific symptoms, frequency of coughing was higher with lisinopril (P less than 0.01), while flushing, edema, palpitations, dizziness, tiredness and rash were reported more frequently (P less than 0.01, for all) in the nifedipine-treated group. Quality of life was assessed by both patients and spouses. No significant changes in wellbeing were observed for either drug, except for the highest dose level of nifedipine which caused a deterioration.
 ...
PMID:Lisinopril or nifedipine in essential hypertension? A Norwegian multicenter study on efficacy, tolerability and quality of life in 828 patients. 166 65

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.
 ...
PMID:Comparison of lisinopril versus atenolol for mild to moderate essential hypertension. 184 57

The safety and efficacy of lisinopril in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension was evaluated by Belgian general practitioners in patients whose hypertensive condition remained uncontrolled by previous treatment and/or in whom the prior drug regimen was not tolerated. In this 8-week study, 3060 eligible patients were initially treated with 20 mg lisinopril once daily; this dose was increased to 40 mg if diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was greater than 90 mm Hg after 4 weeks. Lisinopril monotherapy in the 1902 patients completing the trial resulted in marked reductions of systolic (SBP) and DBP from 172.5/102.4 mm Hg at baseline to 147.4/86.6 mm Hg by week 8. More than 90% of patients achieved a DBP less than 95 mm Hg. The decrease in blood pressure was similar in patients older and younger than 65 year of age. Only about 20% of patients required an increase in their daily intake of lisinopril to 40 mg. Treatment was well tolerated and the profile of adverse events was similar to the pattern found with other nonsulfydryl angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. Tolerance in the elderly was similar to that experience by hypertensives under 65 years of age. Thus, lisinopril at 20 or 40 mg once daily proved both well tolerated and effective in reducing blood pressure in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.
 ...
PMID:The antihypertensive effect and safety of lisinopril in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. A Belgian multicenter study. 217 13

In a multicenter, parallel, double-blind study, lisinopril was compared with atenolol in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension. Four hundred ninety patients were randomized to a once-a-day treatment with lisinopril 20 mg or atenolol 50 mg for 4 weeks, and the doses of lisinopril or atenolol were increased up to 80 mg or 200 mg, respectively, at 4-week intervals if sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) was not well controlled. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 or 25 mg was added after 12 weeks, if necessary, and titrated upward after 4 weeks to a maximum dose of 25 or 50 mg/day. Lisinopril and atenolol reduced SDBP to a similar extent. All reductions from baseline in sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressure were significant (less than 0.01). Lisinopril produced a significant (less than 0.01) greater reduction in sitting systolic blood pressure (SSBP) than atenolol. Addition of HCTZ caused further blood pressure reductions (p less than 0.01). Five patients (1.7%) on lisinopril and four (2.0%) on atenolol developed skin rashes during weeks 1-12. Two patients (0.7%) on lisinopril 80 mg developed proteinuria (greater than 1 g/day). Cough occurred more often with lisinopril (4.5%), and elevated triglycerides occurred more often with atenolol (2.0%).
 ...
PMID:The antihypertensive effect of lisinopril compared to atenolol in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. 244 51

Lisinopril, a long-acting angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, and the calcium channel blocker nifedipine in its retard formulation, were compared as monotherapy in a group of 45 patients with essential hypertension. Lisinopril in single daily doses (range 20-80 mg, median dose 40 mg) and nifedipine retard in twice daily doses (total daily dose range 40-80 mg, median dose 60 mg) were equally effective in controlling hypertension. The lisinopril group (n = 30), at baseline supine blood pressure 178/109 +/- 23/9 mm Hg (mean +/- 1 SD), after 12 weeks' therapy measured 148/88 +/- 27/14 mm Hg; the nifedipine group (n = 15), at baseline 185/110 +/- 23/11 mm Hg, after 12 weeks' therapy measured 151/89 +/- 14/10 mm Hg. The number of patients who experienced clinical adverse effects was significantly greater in the nifedipine group: 8 of 15 (53%) compared to 4 of 30 (13%) in the lisinopril group. The commonest adverse effects of patients on nifedipine were swollen ankles, flushing, and headache. Two patients on nifedipine were withdrawn from the study because of their adverse experiences. Of the patients on lisinopril there were single reports of flushing, ankle swelling, tiredness, and chest pain. No patient withdrew from lisinopril because of an adverse experience. No adverse laboratory experiences were recorded in either group. In conclusion, lisinopril and nifedipine retard were equally effective in controlling essential hypertension. Lisinopril was, however, better tolerated during this study.
 ...
PMID:Comparative efficacy of lisinopril and nifedipine retard in essential hypertension: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. 245 54

After a 2-4 week no-treatment period, 24 patients (12 young, age 29-45 yr.; 12 elderly, age 65-81 yr.; 20 black, 4 white) with an untreated sitting diastolic blood pressure between 91-120 mm Hg received the nonsulfhydryl angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, lisinopril for three weeks in a singleblind, parallel group comparison. Patients who did not achieve goal blood pressure with the initial low-dose (10 mg/day) were treated with a high-dose regimen (40 mg/day) for three weeks. In those who remained incompletely responsive, hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg/day was added for four weeks in an attempt to normalize blood pressure (less than or equal to 90 mm Hg). Low-dose lisinopril monotherapy produced comparable reductions in the mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures (approximately -15/-8 mm Hg in both younger and older patients). Increasing the dose produced a slightly greater fall in mean blood pressures which normalized the blood pressure in five of six elderly patients unresponsive to the lower dose; addition of hydrochlorothiazide normalized three of the five remaining subjects from both groups who were unresponsive to high dose lisinopril. Lisinopril administration resulted in a rise in plasma renin activity and a fall in plasma aldosterone concentrations which were similar in both groups and which returned over time toward the baseline. The drug was well tolerated, producing one episode of symptomatic hypotension following the addition of hydrochlorothiazide to lisinopril monotherapy. Lisinopril alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide produces favorable antihypertensive effects in both younger and older predominantly black, low-renin patients with essential hypertension.
 ...
PMID:The antihypertensive response to lisinopril: the effect of age in a predominantly black population. 254 Feb 24


1 2 3 4 Next >>