Literature DB >> 1884720

Effects of diltiazem and metoprolol on blood pressure, adverse symptoms and general well-being. The Swedish Diltiazem-Metoprolol Multi-Centre Study Group.

C Dahlöf1, T Hedner, T Thulin, S Gustafsson, S O Olsson.   

Abstract

General well-being, adverse effects and anti-hypertensive efficacy have been investigated in a double blind, parallel-group, dose-response multicentre study of diltiazem and metoprolol monotherapy for hypertension. 128 patients with primary hypertension were included from 10 participating centres. The patients were randomized to receive oral diltiazem 120-240-360 mg/day or metoprolol 50-100-200 mg/day. Each dose was given for a 4-week period as a forced titration regime. In all 119 patients, 59 and 60, respectively, on diltiazem and metoprolol completed the study protocol. There were dose-dependent reductions in supine and standing blood pressures (BP) after both diltiazem and metoprolol therapy. In the diltiazem group, supine BP was reduced by 10 (11)/10 (6) mmHg (SBP/DBP) at the highest dose level, and the corresponding values for the metoprolol group were 7 (16)/8 (9) mmHg (SBP/DBP). Target pressures (DBP less than or equal to 90 mmHg and/or a reduction in DBP of greater than or equal to 10%) were reached in 63% and 48% of the patients, respectively. The incidence and severity of dose-dependent adverse effects, as evaluated by spontaneous reports or open and direct questioning, did not differ between treatments. Subjective well-being, evaluated by a self-administered questionnaire, the MSE-profile, did not differ significantly between diltiazem and metoprolol therapy. However, after an initial slight deterioration, contentment and vitality tended to improve with increasing doses of diltiazem, while a dose-related deterioration in these variables was observed on metoprolol therapy. At the highest dose levels, contentment and vitality tended to be better in the diltiazem than the metoprolol group. Thus, diltiazem and metoprolol in daily doses of 120-360 mg and 50-200 mg, respectively, produce comparable and parallel reductions in supine and standing BP. However, while subjective well-being tended to improve with increasing doses of diltiazem, there was a negative trend for metoprolol. It is concluded that diltiazem, given as monotherapy to hypertensive patients, does not impair subjective well-being.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1884720     DOI: 10.1007/bf00315222

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0031-6970            Impact factor:   2.953


  23 in total

1.  The 1988 report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.

Authors: 
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1988-05

2.  Statistics and ethics in medical research: III How large a sample?

Authors:  D G Altman
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1980-11-15

3.  Change in symptoms of hypertensive patients after referral to hospital clinic.

Authors:  C J Bulpitt; C T Dollery; S Carne
Journal:  Br Heart J       Date:  1976-02

Review 4.  Tolerability and well-being with metoprolol in a controlled release (CR/ZOK) formulation: a review article.

Authors:  E Dimenäs; C Dahlöf
Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 3.126

5.  The effects of antihypertensive therapy on the quality of life.

Authors:  S H Croog; S Levine; M A Testa; B Brown; C J Bulpitt; C D Jenkins; G L Klerman; G H Williams
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1986-06-26       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Factors affecting the reporting of symptoms by hypertensive patients.

Authors:  M J Vandenburg; S J Evans; B J Kelly; F Bradshaw; W J Currie; W D Cooper
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 7.  Initial therapy in hypertension: quality-of-life considerations.

Authors:  N K Hollenberg
Journal:  J Hypertens Suppl       Date:  1987-02

8.  Sample size for short-term trials of antihypertensive drugs.

Authors:  S Freestone; J H Silas; L E Ramsay
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 9.  Treating mild hypertension. Report of the British Hypertension Society working party.

Authors: 
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-03-18

Review 10.  Metoprolol. An updated review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy, in hypertension, ischaemic heart disease and related cardiovascular disorders.

Authors:  P Benfield; S P Clissold; R N Brogden
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 9.546

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Health-related quality-of-life measurement in hypertension. A review of randomised controlled drug trials.

Authors:  I Côté; J P Grégoire; J Moisan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Metoprolol: a pharmacoeconomic and quality-of-life evaluation of its use in hypertension, post-myocardial infarction and dilated cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  D H Peters; P Benfield
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Quality-of-life instruments in hypertension.

Authors:  C J Bulpitt; A E Fletcher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Quality of life claims in trials of anti-hypertensive therapy.

Authors:  S M Hunt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily versus twice-daily formulations of diltiazem in the treatment of systemic hypertension. The Canadian Multicenter Diltiazem-CD Hypertension Trial Group.

Authors:  T D Ruddy; J M Wright; D Savard; S P Handa; A Chockalingam; A P Boulet
Journal:  Cardiovasc Drugs Ther       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 3.727

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.