Literature DB >> 2013485

Metoprolol versus thiazide diuretics in hypertension. Morbidity results from the MAPHY Study.

J Wikstrand1, I Warnold, J Tuomilehto, G Olsson, H J Barber, K Eliasson, D Elmfeldt, B Jastrup, N B Karatzas, J Leer.   

Abstract

The present study in hypertensive men (40-64 years old) with untreated diastolic blood pressure above 100 mm Hg was aimed at investigating whether metoprolol (n = 1,609) given as initial treatment would lower the risk for coronary events (sudden death and myocardial infarction) more effectively than thiazide diuretics (n = 1,625). A substantial part of this study was the metoprolol arm of the Heart Attack Primary Prevention in Hypertension (HAPPHY) study. The HAPPHY study was a pooling of the effect of different beta-blockers, mainly metoprolol and atenolol, in which no favorable effect in relative risk was observed for atenolol as compared with diuretics. In the present study, 255 patients suffered definite coronary events during follow-up; 25% of these events were fatal, 39% were acute myocardial infarctions, and 36% were silent myocardial infarctions. The risk for coronary events was significantly lower in patients on metoprolol than in patients on diuretics (111 versus 144 cases, p = 0.001, corresponding to 14.3 versus 18.8 cases/1,000 patient years and a relative risk of 0.76 at the end of the trial; 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.98). This difference in risk has potentially important implications for clinical practice because of the large number of hypertensive patients who are at increased risk for coronary events. Because a placebo group, for ethical reasons, could not be included, relative risk can only be expressed in relation to diuretics. There was no difference between the two treatment groups in baseline characteristics, blood pressure during follow-up, or stroke rates. Thus, the difference in risk for coronary events is probably mediated via mechanisms other than blood pressure control. However, present data might suggest that different beta-blockers may have different efficacy in preventing coronary events. The reasons for this possibility are as yet unknown.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2013485     DOI: 10.1161/01.hyp.17.4.579

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hypertension        ISSN: 0194-911X            Impact factor:   10.190


  22 in total

Review 1.  Choosing a first-line drug in the management of elevated blood pressure: what is the evidence? 2: Beta-blockers.

Authors:  J M Wright
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-07-25       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  MRC trial of treating hypertension in older adults.

Authors:  J Tuomilehto
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-06-20

3.  Drug expenditure and new drug introductions: the Swedish experience.

Authors:  U G Gerdtham; M Johannesson; B Jönsson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Antihypertensive drugs and plasma lipids.

Authors:  J D Swales
Journal:  Br Heart J       Date:  1991-12

5.  Effects of beta-blockers on HMG CoA reductase and LDL receptor activity in cultured human skin fibroblasts.

Authors:  H Yoshida; M Suzukawa; T Ishikawa; H Shige; E Nishio; H Hosoai; M Ayaori; H Nakamura
Journal:  Cardiovasc Drugs Ther       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 3.727

6.  A review of cost-effectiveness analyses of hypertension treatment.

Authors:  M Johannesson; B Jönsson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  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

8.  Cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment: metoprolol versus thiazide diuretics.

Authors:  M Johannesson; J Wikstrand; B Jönsson; G Berglund; J Tuomilehto
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 9.  CYP2D6 polymorphism and its impact on the clinical response to metoprolol: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Maxime Meloche; Michael Khazaka; Imad Kassem; Amina Barhdadi; Marie-Pierre Dubé; Simon de Denus
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2020-04-05       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 10.  Report of the Canadian Hypertension Society Consensus Conference: 3. Pharmacologic treatment of essential hypertension.

Authors:  R I Ogilvie; E D Burgess; J R Cusson; R D Feldman; L A Leiter; M G Myers
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-09-01       Impact factor: 8.262

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.