The 2001 Canadian recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part two--Therapy. South African hypertension guideline 2011. Are Observational Studies More Informative Than Randomized Controlled Trials in Hypertension?: Con Side of the Argument Hypertensive emergencies in old age: effects of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition. Relationship of Antihypertensive Treatment Regimens and Change in Blood Pressure to Risk for Heart Failure in Hypertensive Patients Randomly Assigned to Doxazosin or Chlorthalidone: Further Analyses from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial The ABCD (Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes) trial. Rationale and design of a trial of hypertension control (moderate or intensive) in type II diabetes. Rationale and design of the Eplerenone combination Versus conventional Agents to Lower blood pressure on Urinary Antialbuminuric Treatment Effect (EVALUATE) trial: a double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the antialbuminuric effects of an aldosterone blocker in hypertensive p Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT): Practical Implications Predictors of antihypertensive drug responses: initial data from a placebo-controlled, randomized, cross-over study with four antihypertensive drugs (The GENRES Study). Medical treatment of hypertension in Switzerland. The 2009 Swiss Hypertension Survey (SWISSHYPE). Double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover comparison of five classes of antihypertensive drugs "Shavasan": a Yogic Exercise in the Management of Hypertension Comparison of the Effects of Antihypertensive Agents on Central Blood Pressure and Arterial Stiffness in Isolated Systolic Hypertension Effects of treatment in hypertension. Results of a controlled study. Background and design of the new U.S. trial on diet and drug treatment of "mild" hypertension (TOMHS). Drug adherence for antihypertensive medications and its determinants among adult hypertensive patients attending in chronic clinics of referral hospitals in Northwest Ethiopia Comparison of antihypertensive treatments in preventing cardiovascular events in elderly diabetic patients: results from the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension–2 Reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive diabetic patients on first-line therapy with an ACE inhibitor compared with a diuretic/beta-blocker-based treatment regimen: a subanalysis of the Captopril Prevention Project. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Practitioner's Trial on the Efficacy of Antihypertensive Treatment in the Elderly Hypertension (The PATE-Hypertension Study) in Japan. Diclofenac sodium versus pethidine in acute renal colic. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) in Hypertension study: rationale, design, and methods. The LIFE Study Group. Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in NIDDM (ABCD) Trial
OBJECTIVE To provide up date d , evidence -based recommendations for the therapy of hypertension in adults . OPTIONS For patients with hypertension , a number of antihypertensive agents may control blood pressure . R and omized trials evaluating first-line therapy with thiazides , beta-adrenergic antagonists , angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors , calcium channel blockers , alpha-blockers , central ly acting agents or angiotensin II receptor antagonists were review ed . OUTCOMES The health outcomes that were considered were changes in blood pressure , cardiovascular morbidity , and cardiovascular and /or all-cause mortality rates . Economic outcomes were not considered due to insufficient evidence . EVIDENCE MEDLINE was search ed for the period March 1999 to October 2001 to identify studies not included in the 2000 revision of the Canadian Recommendations for the Management of Hypertension . Reference lists were scanned , experts were polled , and the personal files of the subgroup members and authors were used to identify other published studies . All relevant articles were review ed and appraised , using prespecified levels of evidence , by content experts and method ological experts . VALUES A high value was placed on the avoidance of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality . BENEFITS , HARMS AND COSTS Various antihypertensive agents reduce the blood pressure of patients with sustained hypertension . In certain setting s , and for specific classes of drugs , blood-pressure lowering has been associated with reduced cardiovascular morbidity and /or mortality . RECOMMENDATIONS The present document contains detailed recommendations pertaining to treatment thresholds , target blood pressures , and choice of agents in various setting s in patients with hypertension . The main changes from the 2000 Recommendations are the addition of a section on the treatment of hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus , the amalgamation of the previous sections on treatment of hypertension in the young and old into one section , increased emphasis on the role of combination therapies over repeated trials of single agents and expansion of the section on the treatment of hypertension after stroke . Implicit in the recommendations for therapy is the principle that treatment for an individual patient should take into consideration global cardiovascular risk , the presence and /or absence of target organ damage , and comorbidities . VALIDATION All recommendations were grade d according to strength of the evidence and voted on by the Canadian Hypertension Recommendations Working Group . Individuals with potential conflicts of interest relative to any specific recommendation were excluded from voting on that recommendation . Only those recommendations achieving high levels of consensus are reported here . These guidelines will continue to be up date d annually OUTCOMES Extensive data from r and omised controlled trials have shown the benefit of treating hypertension . The target blood pressure ( BP ) for antihypertensive management is systolic < 140 mmHg and diastolic < 90 mmHg with minimal or no drug side-effects ; however , stricter BP control is required for patients with end-organ damage , co-existing risk factors and co-morbidity , e.g. diabetes mellitus . The reduction of BP in the elderly and in those with severe hypertension should be achieved gradually over 1 month . Co-existent risk factors should also be controlled . BENEFITS Benefits of management include reduced risks of stroke , cardiac failure , chronic kidney disease and coronary heart disease . RECOMMENDATIONS The correct BP measurement procedure is described , and evaluation of cardiovascular risk factors and recommendations for antihypertensive therapy are stipulated . The total cardiovascular disease risk profile should be determined for all patients to inform management strategies . Lifestyle modification and patient education are cornerstones in the management of every patient . Major indications , pre caution s and contra-indications to each recommended antihypertensive drug are listed . Combination therapy should be considered ab initio if the BP is ≥ 20/10 mmHg . First-line drug therapy for uncomplicated hypertension includes low-dose thiazide-like diuretics , calcium channel blockers ( CCBs ) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors ( ACE-Is ) ( or ARBs - angiotensin II receptor blockers ) . If the target BP is not obtained , a second antihypertensive should be added from the aforementioned list . If the target BP is still not met , the third remaining antihypertensive agent should be used . In black patients  either thiazide-like diuretics or CCBs can be used initially , because response rates are better than with ACE-Is or β-blockers . In treating resistant hypertension , a central ly acting drug , vasodilator , α-blocker , spironolactone or β-locker should be added . This guideline includes management of specific situations , i.e. hypertensive emergency and urgency , severe hypertension with target organ damage , hypertension in diabetes mellitus , resistant hypertension , fixed drug combinations , new trials in hypertension , and interactions of antihypertensive agents with other drugs . VALIDITY The guideline was developed by the Southern African Hypertension Society The very first rigorously design ed , r and omized controlled trial ( RCT ) in the history of modern medicine was published in 1948 . The study , design ed and carried out by the Streptomycin in Tuberculosis Trials Committee of the Medical Research Council , demonstrated the efficacy of streptomycin in treating pulmonary tuberculosis on top of bed rest , which was the best available treatment at that time.1 In the field of hypertension treatment and cardiovascular prevention , the history of event-based RCTs began in 1967 , when the cardiovascular benefits and risks of antihypertensive drug treatment were evaluated in the setting of the Veterans Administration Cooperative Study in Hypertension.2 In that trial , 143 patients with severe hypertension were r and omized to receive blood pressure (BP)–lowering drug treatment or matched placebo for 11 months . A major morbid or fatal event was observed in 26 of 70 patients who received placebo ( 37 % ) and in only 1 of 73 patients under active treatment ( 1 % ) . The amazing results of this l and mark trial established beyond any doubt the striking cardiovascular benefits of antihypertensive drug treatment of hypertension at a time when controversy still persisted regarding the supposedly deleterious effects of BP reduction on organ perfusion.3 Ever since , RCTs have represented a formidable tool for evaluating risks and benefits of hypertension treatment . Over the past 50 years , the remarkable progress in treatment and control of high BP , one of the most outst and ing achievements of modern medicine , has been driven by the results of many large , event-based RCTs . The influential position of RCTs in clinical and therapeutic research as opposed to real-world observational studies ( surveys , registries , and retrospective analyses of existing data bases ) originates from their high internal validity ( ie , the power to address clinical questions with a low level of internal bias ) . A list of strengths and weaknesses of RCTs and observational studies is Hypertensive emergencies , and to a certain extent their treatment , contribute to morbidity and mortality in elderly patients . We studied 22 hospitalized patients , aged 70 - 90 years , all of whom had moderate essential hypertensive . During acute hypertension , mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure rose to 230 + /- 24 and 120 + /- 22 mmHg , respectively . Symptoms of reduced tissue perfusion/oxygenation and /or organ failure occurred , forcing us to begin antihypertensive therapy . We administered 50 mg of the angiotensin converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitor captopril sublingually , and within 15 min , systolic blood pressure decreased by an average 60 + /- 16 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure by an average 25 + /- 14 mmHg . There was no significant change in the heart rate . In addition , we treated 22 comparable patients with 10 mg nifedipine sublingually and observed , in four cases , a greater fall in blood pressure ( up to 90 mmHg ) together with tachycardia . These results show the beneficial effects of captopril in the treatment of hypertensive emergencies in elderly patients . The absence of dangerous side effects indicates that ACE inhibitors can be used as first-choice drugs for the treatment of acute hypertensive crises , even in old age Context Previously published results of this r and omized , double-blind trial showed that hypertensive patients treated with doxazosin rather than chlorthalidone more often developed heart failure . Did differences in blood pressure control or treatment with other drugs explain these findings ? Contribution This analysis shows that the slightly worse blood pressure control achieved with doxazosin did not explain higher risks for heart failure . Risks with doxazosin versus chlorthalidone were highest among patients who received monotherapy ( relative risk , 3.10 ) and lowest among patients who received stepped care with additional drugs ( relative risk , 1.42 ) . Implication s Increased risks for heart failure with doxazosin versus chlorthalidone are attenuated but not eliminated when additional antihypertensive drugs are used . The Editors The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial ( ALLHAT ) , a r and omized , double-blind , multicenter clinical trial including 42 418 participants at 623 clinical sites , is design ed to determine whether treatment begun with a calcium-channel blocker ( amlodipine ) , an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ( lisinopril ) , or an -adrenergic blocker ( doxazosin ) compared to treatment with a diuretic ( chlorthalidone ) reduces the incidence of fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infa rct ion in high-risk patients with hypertension ( 1 ) . Secondary end points are all-cause mortality , stroke , and other cardiovascular events . A lipid-lowering trial in a subset of 10 356 participants is design ed to determine whether decreasing cholesterol levels with a hydroxymethyl glutamyl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor ( pravastatin ) compared with usual care reduces all-cause mortality in older , moderately hypercholesterolemic patients . In January 2000 , the doxazosin arm of the trial was discontinued ( 2 ) because major cardiovascular disease ( relative risk , 1.25 [ 95 % CI , 1.17 to 1.33 ] ; P < 0.001 ) , especially heart failure ( relative risk , 2.04 [ 95 % CI , 1.79 to 2.32 ] ; P < 0.001 ) , was significantly increased compared with the chlorthalidone arm . Equally important , a low probability existed that doxazosin would show benefit over chlorthalidone for the primary end point by the scheduled study end , given the lack of difference ( relative risk , 1.02 [ 95 % CI , 0.90 to 1.17 ] ; P > 0.2 ] at that time . These intention-to-treat analyses compared patients assigned to chlorthalidone with patients assigned to doxazosin . In this article , we analyze how treatment changes may have affected the comparison of doxazosin with chlorthalidone in terms of heart failure . Our major objectives are to ascertain to what extent the relative risk with doxazosin versus chlorthalidone depends on 1 ) whether the assigned drugs were used as monotherapy or in combination with other agents and 2 ) the difference in decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure . Methods Study Design The rationale and design of ALLHAT are described in detail elsewhere ( 1 ) . In brief , eligible participants were men and women 55 years of age or older who had systolic or diastolic hypertension ( 140/90 mm Hg or hypertension controlled with medication ) plus at least one additional risk factor for coronary heart disease events . The risk factors included previous ( > 6 months ) myocardial infa rct ion or stroke , left ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiography or echocardiography , history of type 2 diabetes , current cigarette smoking , and a low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level . Persons with a history of hospitalized or treated symptomatic heart failure or a known ejection fraction less than 0.35 were excluded . Unless the drug regimen required tapering for safety , participants who had been taking antihypertensive medications continued to do so until the day of r and omization , at which point they stopped taking all previous medications . On the day after r and omization , treatment with the study drug was initiated . Enrollment occurred from February 1994 through January 1998 . The original reported number of 42 448 participants and 625 sites changed because 30 patients with poor documentation of informed consent were excluded ( 2 ) . Participants were assigned by a computer-generated r and omization schedule in a ratio of 1.7:1 to receive chlorthalidone or doxazosin . R and omization was stratified by center and blocked over time to maintain the ratio . All participants gave written informed consent , and all centers obtained institutional review board approval . Ascertainment of Outcomes At each clinic visit , occurrence of study end points was assessed by the clinical investigator . A hospital discharge summary was required for each hospitalized study outcome , and a death certificate was required for each death . ALLHAT defined symptomatic heart failure as clear-cut signs or symptoms of left or right ventricular dysfunction that can not be attributed to other causes . A patient had to have at least one symptom ( paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea , dyspnea at rest , New York Heart Association class III dyspnea or other symptoms [ on less than ordinary exertion ] , or orthopnea ) and one sign ( rales , ankle edema , tachycardia , cardiomegaly or characteristic pulmonary pattern on chest radiography , S3 gallop , or jugular venous distention ) ( 3 ) . Symptoms and signs were determined by the clinic investigator through patient history , chart review , or consultation with the treating physician , but such data were not collected central ly . A one-time sample of 24 hospitalized or fatal heart failure events was review ed in a blinded manner by the ALLHAT Endpoints Subcommittee ; 20 of 24 ( 83 % ) were deemed to have complete data for a definitive diagnosis . Of the 20 cases , the agreement rate between the subcommittee and the clinic investigators was 90 % ( 18 of 20 ) and similar in both treatment groups . Details on the validity of diagnosis of heart failure will be provided in a future report . Measurement and Treatment of Blood Pressure The ALLHAT protocol specified a stepped-care treatment program for hypertension . Trained observers using st and ardized techniques measured blood pressures during the trial ( 1 , 2 ) . All blood pressures were calculated as the average of two measurements obtained with a 30-second interval between them . The blood pressure goal in all four study arms was less than 140/90 mm Hg . This level was to be achieved with the lowest possible dose of blinded first-line drug , with addition of second- and third-line open-label therapy as needed after reaching the maximal dose of first-line drug . Chlorthalidone and doxazosin were to be taken once daily in the morning . By design , doses were selected to achieve equivalent blood pressure control in the treatment groups . The first , second , and third dosage levels were 12.5 mg/d , 12.5 mg/d ( sham titration ) , and 25 mg/d , respectively , for chlorthalidone and 2 mg/d , 4 mg/d , and 8 mg/d for doxazosin . Double-blinded 1-mg and 12.5-mg doses of doxazosin and chlorthalidone , respectively , were used for the first week to minimize the frequency of postural hypotension associated with doxazosin . The identity of drugs was masked at each dosage level , but dosage level was not . After r and omization , patients were seen for dose titration as needed at 1 and 3 months per the protocol , but they could return more often until target blood pressure was reached . Subsequently , required visits occurred at 3-month intervals during the first year and at 4-month intervals thereafter . Open-label second-step drugs were added as needed and tolerated . These agents were reserpine ( 0.05 to 0.2 mg/d ) , clonidine ( 0.1 to 0.3 mg twice daily ) , and atenolol ( 25 to 100 mg/d ) . The choice of second-step drug was at the discretion of the treating clinician-investigator . The third-step agent was hydralazine ( 25 to 100 mg twice daily ) . Details of these therapies are provided elsewhere ( 1 ) . Investigators could choose to prescribe open-label antihypertensive drugs other than those provided by the study . However , use of the drug classes under study thiazide diuretics , calcium antagonists , angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors , and -adrenergic blockerswas strongly discouraged to avoid dilution of treatment comparisons . When clinical conditions other than uncontrolled hypertension ( for example , angina or heart failure ) were present , drugs from any study class could be used . If a step 1 drug was specifically required for blood pressure control while blinded drug treatment was continued , the step 1 drug could be added as open-label therapy but the dose could not exceed one half the maximum recommended by the Fifth Joint National Committee ( 4 ) . In most such cases , unblinding the patient or the investigator to treatment assignment was not necessary . ( Overall , < 1 % of drug identities were provided to either participant or investigator . ) Any of nine possible open-label drug typesdiuretic , calcium-channel blocker , angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor , -adrenergic blocker , atenolol , reserpine , clonidine , hydralazine , and other antihypertensive drug ( which could include nonatenolol -blockers , although drug name was not logged)could be recorded at each visit . Because diuretics , angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors , and -blockers are beneficial in preventing or treating heart failure , we call these antihypertensive heart failure drugs . Data on  antihypertensive drug use before study enrollment were collected , but not by drug class . Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed for use of additional drugs according to participants ' r and omized treatment assignments and regardless of continuation of blinded study treatment . The outcomes all heart failure ( treated outside hospital , hospitalized , or fatal ) and hospitalized or fatal heart failure were examined by treatment group for the entire cohort . The time to event for the previously published as-r and omized analyses was the interval from r and omization to first diagnosis of heart failure for patients who had an outcome , or from r and omization to OBJECTIVE The primary objective of the ABCD ( Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes ) Trial is to determine the efficacy of intensive versus moderate antihypertensive control on the outcome of type II diabetic end-organ complications in normotensive and hypertensive population s. The secondary objective is to determine whether any differential effect on end-organ complications exists between an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor ( enalapril ) and a calcium channel blocker ( nisoldipine ) . DESIGN The ABCD Trial is a prospect i ve , controlled , r and omized , double-blind trial , with a planned follow-up of 5 years . SETTING All patients are seen at the Colorado Prevention Center , site of the ABCD Trial , for follow-up visits . PATIENTS Patients are type II diabetic males and females between the ages of 40 and 74 years with entry diastolic blood pressures > or = 80 mmHg . Patients were recruited from University of Colorado-affiliated hospitals , several health maintenance organizations , and mailing lists from the Colorado affiliate of the American Diabetes Association . INTERVENTIONS Patients were r and omized to intensive antihypertensive drug therapy or moderate antihypertensive drug therapy . Patients were also r and omized to nisoldipine or enalapril , with open-label medications added if further blood pressure control was necessary . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure is glomerular filtration rate as assessed by 24-hour creatinine clearance . Secondary outcome measures are microalbumin urinary excretion , left ventricular hypertrophy , retinopathy , and neuropathy . Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality will also be evaluated . CONCLUSION Given the data showing the impact of hypertension on diabetic complications , the ABCD Trial was design ed to determine if intensive antihypertensive therapy will be more efficacious than moderate antihypertensive therapy on the outcome of these complications . Results from the ABCD Trial are expected to lend interpretable and clinical ly relevant findings with regards to the treatment of hypertension in type II diabetes Although inhibitors of the renin – angiotensin system are effective as first-line antihypertensive drugs in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease , they can not completely prevent the progression of renal injury . Many animal studies , including our own , and a few human studies suggest that mineralocorticoid receptor blockade could inhibit the ongoing renal damage in chronic kidney disease . Thus , we design ed this double-blinded , r and omized , placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the antialbuminuric effect of a low dose ( 50 mg day−1 ) of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist eplerenone . The study subjects will include 340 hypertensive patients ( blood pressure : 130–180/80–100 mm Hg ) with albuminuria ( urinary albumin/creatinine ratio : 30–600 mg g−1 in the first morning void urine ) , who are treated with an inhibitor of the renin – angiotensin system . Other classes of antihypertensive drugs may be added as needed to achieve the target blood pressure ( < 130/80 mm Hg ) . The primary study end point is the change in the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio after a 1-year study period . This trial is expected to show whether a low dose of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists can exert an antialbuminuric effect in patients with chronic kidney disease The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial ( ALLHAT ) , sponsored by the National Heart , Lung , and Blood Institute ( NHLBI ) , is the largest outcome trial of antihypertensive treatment ever carried out and the only large blood pressure ( BP ) trial to be carried out in a US population in the past decade.1 The rationale for ALLHAT , which was design ed in the early 1990s , was the urgent need to determine which of the several classes of antihypertensive drugs that had been developed and released for clinical use was most effective in preventing coronary heart disease ( CHD ) , defined as fatal CHD and nonfatal myocardial infa rct ion.2 The only r and omized trials that had previously compared representatives of the antihypertensive drug classes , the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents3 and the Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study (TOMHS),4 showed BP reductions with all classes but were not powered to evaluate CHD outcomes . Further , prior outcome trials had shown that the reduction in CHD event rates with antihypertensive treatment was less than expected based on epidemiologic data .5 Adverse effects of study drugs , particularly diuretics , including hypokalemia , hypomagnesemia , hyperuricemia , hyperlipidemia , insulin resistance , and ventricular ectopic activity , had been adduced to account for the disappointing outcomes of earlier trials by off setting the beneficial effects of BP reduction.6,7 To further complicate the picture , benefits beyond BP reduction had been attributed to some antihypertensive drug classes , ie , improved survival and reduced morbidity in persons with heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitors8–10 and improved insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles with α-blocker treatment.11 In contrast , another antihypertensive drug class , the dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers ( CCBs ) , had been associated with unfavorable outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infa rct ion or unstable angina.12 There were no data BACKGROUND Only a minority of hypertensive individuals is adequately controlled for their hypertension , partially because reliable predictors for efficient antihypertensive drug therapy are lacking . METHODS In a prospect i ve , r and omized , double-blind , cross-over , placebo-controlled study ( The GENRES Study ) , 208 moderately hypertensive Finnish men ( aged 35 to 60 years ) were treated for 4 weeks with antihypertensive drugs from four different classes : amlodipine ( 5 mg ) , bisoprolol ( 5 mg ) , hydrochlorothiazide ( 25 mg ) , or losartan ( 50 mg ) daily . Each individual received each of the four monotherapies in a r and omized order . Four-week placebo periods were included before and between drug treatment periods . Antihypertensive responses were assessed with 24-h ambulatory and office measurements and analyzed according to age , body mass index , triceps skin fold thickness , waist-to-hip ratio , duration of hypertension , number of previous antihypertensive drugs , number of affected parents , and blood pressure ( BP ) levels , and profiles during placebo periods . RESULTS The median BP responses in 24-h ambulatory recordings ( systolic/diastolic ) were 11/8 mm Hg for bisoprolol , 9/6 mm Hg for losartan , 7/5 mm Hg for amlodipine , and 5/2 mm Hg for hydrochlorothiazide . The highest pairwise within-subject correlations in BP responses were seen for the combinations of bisoprolol-losartan and amlodipine-hydrochlorothiazide . The BP responses to bisoprolol and losartan did not vary according to the variables .  Amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide responses were positively correlated with age , placebo BP level , and lower night-time dipping on placebo . CONCLUSIONS Baseline clinical and BP parameters may be used to predict the efficacy of antihypertensive therapies . The GENRES Study material should provide an excellent platform for future pharmacogenetic analyses of antihypertensive drug responsiveness OBJECTIVES Despite a broad and efficient pharmacological antihypertensive armamentarium , blood pressure ( BP ) control is suboptimal and heterogeneous throughout Europe . Recent representative data from Switzerl and are limited . The goal of the present survey was therefore to assess the actual control rate of high BP in Switzerl and in accordance with current guidelines . The influence of risk factors , target organ damage and medication on BP levels and control was also evaluated . METHODS A cross-sectional visit-based survey of ambulatory hypertensive patients was performed in 2009 in Switzerl and . 281 r and omly selected physicians provided data on 5 consecutive hypertensive patients attending their practice s for BP follow-up . Data were anonymously collected on demographics , comorbidities and current medication , and BP was recorded . Subsequent modification of pharmacological antihypertensive therapy was assessed . RESULTS Data from 1376 patients were available . Mean age was 65 ± 12 years , 53.9 % were male subjects . 26.4 % had complicated hypertension . Overall , BP control ( < 140/90 mm Hg for uncomplicated and < 130/80 mm Hg for complicated hypertension ) was achieved in 48.9 % . Compared to patients with complicated hypertension , BP control was better in patients with uncomplicated hypertension ( 59.4 % vs. 19.2 % , p < 0.001 ) . As a monotherapy the most prescribed drug class were angiotensin receptor blockers ( ARB , 41 % ) , followed by angiotensin converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitors ( 21.5 % ) , betablockers ( 20.8 % ) and calcium channel blockers ( CCB , 10.8 % ) . The most prescribed drug combinations were ARB + diuretic ( 30.1 % ) and ACE inhibitors + diuretic ( 15.3 % ) . 46 % were receiving a fixed drug combination . In only 32.7 % of patients with uncontrolled hypertension was a change in drug therapy made . CONCLUSION This representative survey on treated adult hypertensive patients shows that , compared to earlier reports , the control rate of hypertension has improved in Switzerl and for uncomplicated but not for complicated , particularly diabetes-associated hypertension . ARBs and ACE inhibitors are the most prescribed antihypertensive drugs for monotherapy , whereas diuretics and ARBs were the most used for combination therapy Objective Hypertension guidelines recommend initial treatment with a β-blocker or diuretic and adding the other drug where blood pressure is not controlled . We hypothesized that systematic rotation through the major classes of antihypertensive drugs would demonstrate substantial differences in the pattern of an individual patient 's response , and suggest a more rational approach to choosing best treatment . Design Thirty-four young hypertensives ( age 28–55 , median 47 ) rotated in a double-blind , Latin-square , crossover fashion through 6 weeks of treatment each with amlodipine , doxazosin , lisinopril , bisoprolol , bendrofluazide and placebo . Blood pressure was measured at each visit . ‘ Best ’ drug , defined by efficacy and tolerability , was repeated at the end . Results Rotation doubled the number of patients reaching target blood pressure ( systolic < 140 mmHg ) on one drug ( P = 0.03 ) . All five drugs were represented among the ‘ best ’ drugs . In six patients , the blood pressure on ‘ best ’ drug was at least 10 mmHg lower than on any other . Response to the ‘ best ’ drug was highly correlated ( r = 0.79 ) with its previous administration . By contrast , there were only weak correlations between responses to pairs of drugs , except for angiotensin-converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitor ( A ) with β-blocker ( B ) , and calcium blocker ( C ) with diuretic ( D ) – each r = 0.71 , P < 0.005 ) . In these young patients , the majority of patients ( 23/34 ) responded best to a drug suppressing the renin system ( A and B ) . Conclusions Patients vary reproducibly in their response to initial treatment , and switching among drugs can increase the efficacy of monotherapy . The results support an AB/CD scheme for choosing therapy , in which the first drug is taken from one of these pairs , and uncontrolled patients switch to one of the other pair Hypertension increases the  morbidity  and  mortality in man . Extensive actuary data have shown that increase in mortality is directly proportional to the severity of blood pressure . In spite of diagnostic advances in recent years , the etiology of hypertension still remains relatively obscure . The vast majority of patients fall into the category of & dquo;essential hypertension&dquo ; and specific therapy is not available for these cases . Drugs are therefore necessary for these patients . The antihypertensive drugs available so far are by no means ideal and have many disadvantages . Any new method for reducing blood pressure is , therefore , most welcome . Management of hypertension by measures other than drugs has been envisaged by Bilgutay et al.1 In this communication , we present a new approach , the management of hypertension with & dquo;shavasan,&dquo Isolated systolic hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and results primarily from elastic artery stiffening . Although various drug therapies are used to lower peripheral blood pressure ( BP ) in patients with isolated systolic hypertension , the effects of the 4 major classes of antihypertensive agents on central BP , pulse pressure ( PP ) amplification , and arterial stiffness in this condition are not clear . Fifty-nine patients over the age of 60 years with untreated isolated systolic hypertension ( systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg and diastolic BP ≤90 mm Hg ) were r and omly assigned to receive 1 of the following 4 antihypertensive agents : perindopril , atenolol , lercanidipine , or bendrofluazide  . BP was measured using a mercury sphygmomanometer , and augmentation index and carotid-femoral ( aortic ) pulse wave velocity were measured at baseline , after 2 weeks of placebo therapy , and at the end of 10 weeks of active therapy . Peripheral systolic BP and peripheral PP were reduced similarly after treatment with all 4 classes of drug . However , central PP was only reduced significantly by perindopril , lercanidipine , and bendrofluazide , whereas atenolol had no effect . Lercanidipine reduced the augmentation index , whereas atenolol increased it . Aortic pulse wave velocity was not changed by any of the drugs . In summary , despite similar reductions in peripheral systolic and PPs with the 4 classes of drug , changes in central pressure and augmentation index varied . Because central PP and increased wave reflections are considered important risk factors in patients with isolated systolic hypertension , the choice of therapy may be influenced by these findings in the future Abstract Morbidity , mortality , and target organ function have been followed in a double-blind study of a predominantly Negro clinic population with mild to moderately severe hypertension over a 2-year period . Patients were placed r and omly on either hypotensive drug therapy ( reserpine , thiazide , guanethedine ) or matched placebos . There were 6 treatment failures among 45 patients in the treatment group and 19 failures among 42 patients in the placebo group . All but one of the failures in the placebo group improved or cleared upon early institution of appropriate hypertensive and supportive therapy . Abnormalities in carbohydrate metabolism and serum uric acid levels were found in patients receiving long-term thiazide therapy .  Hypertensive disease in the Negro population of Baltimore is a serious , life-threatening condition . Our study provides evidence of the need for continuous close supervision , and the provision of organized teams devoted to the care , of such a population A multicenter , r and omized , controlled , double-blind U.S. trial is comparing the combined effects of diet treatment and 1 of 5 active drug regimens with diet treatment alone , for the long-term management of middle-aged adults with " mild " hypertension . Factors stimulating this trial are data documenting the high prevalence of mild hypertension in the adult population ; mild hypertension 's responsibility for a high proportion of morbidity and mortality attributable to hypertension overall ; data from long-term hypertension intervention trials showing reduced morbidity and mortality of people with mild hypertension with use of either diuretics or beta blockers as step-1 therapy , and other trials that failed to demonstrate beneficial impact on morbidity and mortality , possibly due to residual questions concerning aspects of benefit to risk ratios with these medications ; recent data from trials showing long-term control of mild hypertension and other risk factors by nutritional means ; lack of data from long-term trials on benefit to risk ratios with newer drugs such as selective alpha 1 inhibitors , angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium channel blockers ; paucity of data from trials on long-term combined effects of diet and drug therapy , and of diet alone , for people with mild hypertension . During the next few years , phase 1 of the trial will study 6 groups of drugs . The step-1 drugs are angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor ( enalapril ) , alpha 1 inhibitor ( doxazosin ) , beta blocker ( acebutolol ) , calcium channel blocker ( amlodipine ) , diuretic ( chlorthalidone ) and placebo . All participants are to receive vigorous sustained nutritional counseling to reduce obesity , moderate sodium intake and avoid heavy use of alcohol . Key endpoints for phase 1 of the study are the need for additional medication to control mild hypertension , side effects ( i.e. , clinical and biochemical ) and consequent need to discontinue drug and quality of life . Phase-1 data are to be used to complete the phase-2 design , with the ultimate aim to assess effects on morbidity and mortality Abstract Background Adherence to prescribed medication is an imperative issue which can be directly linked with the management of chronic diseases like hypertension ; failure to adhere can affect the effectiveness of medication as well as the efficiency of the health care system . There is scarcity of information regarding the level of drug adherence for antihypertensive medications and its determinants in Ethiopia , particularly in the study area . Therefore , the aim of this study was to assess adherence level and its determinants for antihypertensive medications among adult hypertensive patients attending the chronic illness clinics of the referral hospitals in northwest Ethiopia . Methods Institution based cross sectional study was conducted from March to April , 2016 . The systematic r and om sampling technique was used to select 409 study participants from three referral hospitals . The question naire was prepared using the World Health Organization ( WHO ) conceptual model and by review ing international literature . The data were collected using an interviewer administered question naire . The data were entered in to Epi - Info version 7 and then transferred to the statistical package for social science ( SPSS ) version 20 for data cleaning and analysis .Bivariate analysis was first done to see the association between each independent variables and dependent variable . Variables with a P-value of less than 0.2 in the bivariate analysis were entered in to the multivariate logistic regression model for final analysis . Multivariate analysis was done using Backward logistic regression method . P-value less than 0.05 was considered to determine the statistical significance of the association and odds ratio with a 95 % confidence interval was used to determine the presence , strength , and direction of association between covariates ( explanatory variables ) and the outcome variable . The Morisky medication adherence scale was used to assess the adherence status using > = 6 as adherent or < 6 as non adherent score . Results Four hundred and nine ( 409 ) study participants were interviewed with a response rate of 100 % . The mean age of the respondents was 54.5 years with ( St and ard Deviation ( SD ) ± 13.58 ) . The overall rate of good adherence was 67.2 % ( 95 % CI = 62.8 , 71.6 ) . Participants who had a favourable attitude towards antihypertensive medications ( Adjusted odds ratio ( AOR ) = 9.88 , 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) : 5.34 , 18.27 ) , having good patient- provider relationship ( AOR = 4.25 , 95 % CI : 2.32 , 7.86 ) , having one ( AOR = 4.36 , 95 % CI : 1.34 , 14.12 ) or no ( AOR = 3.38 , 95 % CI:1.01,11.31 ) co-morbidities , a long duration of treatment ( AOR = 1.89 , 95%CI : 1.07 , 3.35 ) , and a low medical cost ( AOR = 2.06 , 95 % CI : 1.13 , 3.76 ) had associations with good drug adherence for antihypertensive medication/s . Conclusions The prevalence of good drug adherence for anti-hypertensive medications in this study was high . Prevention of co- morbidities , making medical services accessible , and maintaining good client-provider interaction are of paramount importance for good drug adherence Background The benefits of treating hypertension in elderly diabetic patients , in terms of achieving reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality , have been documented in several recent prospect i ve trials . There has , however , been some controversy regarding the effect of different antihypertensive drugs on the frequency of myocardial infa rct ion in this group of patients . Design STOP Hypertension-2 was a prospect i ve , r and omized , open trial with blinded endpoint evaluation . Methods We studied 6614 elderly patients aged 70–84 years ; 719 of them had diabetes mellitus at the start of the study ( mean age 75.8 years ) . Patients were r and omly assigned to one of three treatment strategies : conventional antihypertensive drugs ( diuretics or β-blockers ) , calcium antagonists , or angiotensin converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitors . Results Reduction in blood pressure was similar in the three treatment groups of diabetics . The prevention of cardiovascular mortality was also similar ; the frequency of this primary endpoint did not differ significantly between the three groups . There were , however , significantly fewer ( P = 0.025 ) myocardial infa rct ions during ACE inhibitor treatment ( n = 17 ) than during calcium antagonist treatment ( n = 32 ; relative risk 0.51 , 95 % confidence interval 0.28–0.92 ) ; but a ( non-significant ) tendency to more strokes during ACE inhibitor treatment ( n = 34 compared with n = 29 ; relative risk 1.16 , 95 % confidence interval 0.71–1.91 ) . Conclusion Treatment of hypertensive diabetic patients with conventional antihypertensive drugs ( diuretics , β-blockers , or both ) seemed to be as effective as treatment with newer drugs such as calcium antagonists or ACE inhibitors OBJECTIVE The Captopril Prevention Project ( CAPPP ) evaluated the effects of an ACE inhibitor-based therapeutic regimen on  cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in hypertension .  One planned sub analysis of the CAPPP was to evaluate the outcome in the diabetic patient group . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In the CAPPP , 572 ( 4.9 % of 10,985 hypertensive patients ) had diabetes at baseline and were studied according to a prospect i ve , r and omized , open , blinded , end point trial design . Patients aged 25 - 66 years with diastolic blood pressure > or = 100 mmHg were included and r and omized to receive either captopril or conventional antihypertensive treatment ( diuretics and /or beta-blockers ) . RESULTS The primary end point , fatal and nonfatal myocardial infa rct ion and stroke as well as other cardiovascular deaths , was markedly lower in the captopril than in the conventional therapy group ( relative risk [ RR ] = 0.59 ; P = 0.018 ) . Specifically , cardiovascular mortality , defined as fatal stroke and myocardial infa rct ion , sudden death , and other cardiovascular death , tended to be lower in the captopril group ( RR = 0.48 ; P = 0.084 ) , and no difference was observed between the study groups for stroke ( RR = 1.02 ; P = 0.96 ) . Myocardial infa rct ions were less frequent in the captopril group than in the conventional therapy group ( RR = 0.34 ; P = 0.002 ) . Furthermore , total mortality was lower in the captopril as compared with the conventional therapy group ( RR = 0.54 ; P = 0.034 ) . Patients with impaired metabolic control seemed to benefit the most from ACE inhibitor-based therapy . CONCLUSIONS Captopril is superior to a diuretic/beta-blocker antihypertensive treatment regimen in preventing cardiovascular events in hypertensive diabetic patients , especially in those with metabolic decompensation OBJECTIVE To assess the ability of antihypertensive drug treatment to reduce the risk of nonfatal and fatal ( total ) stroke in isolated systolic hypertension . DESIGN Multicenter , r and omized , double-blind , placebo-controlled . SETTING Community-based ambulatory population in tertiary care centers . PARTICIPANTS 4736 persons ( 1.06 % ) from 447,921 screenees aged 60 years and above were r and omized ( 2365 to active treatment , 2371 to placebo ) . Systolic blood pressure ranged from 160 to 219 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure was less than 90 mm Hg . Of the participants , 3161 were not receiving antihypertensive medication at initial contact , and 1575 were . The average systolic blood pressure was 170 mm Hg ; average diastolic blood pressure , 77 mm Hg . The mean age was 72 years , 57 % were women , and 14 % were black . INTERVENTIONS -- Participants were stratified by clinical center and by antihypertensive medication status at initial contact . For step 1 of the trial , dose 1 was chlorthalidone , 12.5 mg/d , or matching placebo ; dose 2 was 25 mg/d . For step 2 , dose 1 was atenolol , 25 mg/d , or matching placebo ; dose 2 was 50 mg/d . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary . Nonfatal and fatal ( total ) stroke . Secondary . Cardiovascular and coronary morbidity and mortality , all-cause mortality , and quality of life measures . RESULTS Average follow-up was 4.5 years . The 5-year average systolic blood pressure was 155 mm Hg for the placebo group and 143 mm Hg for the active treatment group , and the 5-year average diastolic blood pressure was 72 and 68 mm Hg , respectively . The 5-year incidence of total stroke was 5.2 per 100 participants for active treatment and 8.2 per 100 for placebo . The relative risk by proportional hazards regression analysis was 0.64 ( P = .0003 ) . For the secondary end point of clinical nonfatal myocardial infa rct ion plus coronary death , the relative risk was 0.73 . Major cardiovascular events were reduced ( relative risk , 0.68 ) . For deaths from all causes , the relative risk was 0.87 . CONCLUSION In persons aged 60 years and over with isolated systolic hypertension , antihypertensive stepped-care drug treatment with low-dose chlorthalidone as step 1 medication reduced the incidence of total stroke by 36 % , with 5-year absolute benefit of 30 events per 1000 participants . Major cardiovascular events were reduced , with 5-year absolute benefit of 55 events per 1000 Patients aged 60 years and older with essential hypertension were treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ( ACE-I ) , delapril ( Adecut ) or a long-acting calcium (Ca)-antagonist , manidipine ( Calslot ) for 3 years . The incidences of cardiovascular events as well as drug-related side effects were compared between the two groups to investigate whether both classes of antihypertensive drugs are beneficial in elderly hypertensive patients . There were no significant differences in characteristics of patients between the two intervention groups , except for slightly lower blood pressure ( P = .08 ) in the Ca-antagonist group at the initiation of the study . There were no significant differences in total death between the two groups . Cardiovascular events ( both fatal and nonfatal ) were noted in 34 of 699 patients ( 22.5/1000 patient-years ) in the ACE-I group and 50 of 1049 patients ( 19.7/1000 patient-years ) in the Ca-antagonist group , with no significant difference found between the two groups . The correlation between cardiovascular incidence and the blood pressure attained during treatment showed a J-shaped phenomenon and suggests that an excessive reduction less than 120 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure ( SBP ) is unnecessary and may be harmful in certain cases . Side effects were more frequent in the ACE-I group than in the Ca-antagonist group ( P = .01 ) . Cough was the major adverse event , occurring in 5.0 % of patients in the ACE-I group . In conclusion , the study indicates that both ACE-I ( delapril ) and Ca-antagonist ( manidipine ) were equally beneficial for reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in elderly hypertensive patients . However , tolerability of ACE-I was lower due to the adverse event of coughing hypertension admitted at the same time because the latter tended to be admitted for other reasons , including vascular complications of hypertension , which might be related to smoking . The lack of association between hypertension and cigarette smoking is well documented,2 ' but inclusion ofcontrol cases with end organ damage might have shown a different trend . The smallireduction in cigarette smoking in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years can not account for the observed excess of smoking in patients with malignant hypertension , which has been confirmed elsewhere.14'6 We were unable to confirm the link of smoking with grade s III and IIa retinopathy , although smoking was slightly more common than in control patients . Other authors usually combined their patients with grade III and IV retinopathy in similar analyses . The prognosis of malignant hypertension , if left untreated , is worse than any form of cancer , with up to 90 % of patients dead in one year."2 Controlling blood pressure prolongs life , " and long term follow up studies have reported a dramatic reduction in mortality.'0 The results oftreatment in our patients were disappointing , but this may be because our cases date d back to 1960 , when effective antihypertensive treatment was not so enthusiastically prescribed . Furthermore , this series includes all patients seen in a district general hospital , some of whom were acutely ill and died within hours or days of admission . The Keith Wagener classification with its gradation of retinopathy from one to four suggests a gradation of risk that is not borne out by our findings . The clinical features ofhypertension in patients with grade s III and IV retinopathy are similar and quite distinct from those seen in patients without retinopathy . Although the severity of hypertension and quality of control of blood pressure with antihypertensive drugs are both potent predictors of risk,23 malignant hypertension seems to carry a particularly bad prognosis , probably related to renal damage due to fibrinoid necrosis of intrarenal arterioles . If control of blood pressure had been better mortality might have been further reduced . The Keith Wagener classification of hypertensive retinopathy , however , seems particularly unhelpful as grade -III and IV do not differ , so we suggest that is should be ab and oned . Malignant and accelerated hypertension are one and the same disease , which should be regarded as a medical emergency requiring accurate long term control of blood pressure . JMW was supported by a grant from ICI Pharmaceuticals and MB by the DHSS computer clinics project . We thank Dr J Mackinnon for providing data from the department of cardiology , Dr A Paton for access to his retinal photography archive , Mr Roy Haynesfor access to the Hospital Activity Analysis Archive , Mrs V L Stewart for secretarial help , and Mrs E Thomas for access to medical records The treatment of hypertension mainly with diuretics and beta blockers reduces cardiovascular mortality and morbidity , largely due to a decreased incidence of stroke , whereas the beneficial effects of antihypertensive therapy on the occurrence of coronary events have been less than expected from epidemiological studies . Furthermore , treated hypertensive patients still have a higher cardiovascular complication rate , compared with matched normotensives . This is particularly evident in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy ( LVH ) , a major independent risk indicator for cardiovascular disease . In addition to elevating blood pressure , angiotensin II ( A-II ) exerts an important influence on cardiac structure and function , stimulating cell proliferation and growth . Thus , to further reduce morbidity and mortality when treating hypertensive patients , it may be important to effectively block the effects of A-II . This can be achieved directly at the A-II receptor level by losartan , the first of a new class of antihypertensive agents . It therefore seems pertinent to investigate whether selective A-II receptor blockade with losartan not only lowers blood pressure but also reduces LVH more effectively than current therapy , and thus improves prognosis . The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction ( LIFE ) in Hypertension study is a double-blind , prospect i ve , parallel group study design ed to compare the effects of losartan with those of the beta-blocker atenolol on the reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in approximately 8,300 hypertensive patients ( initial sitting diastolic blood pressure 95 to 115 mm Hg or systolic blood pressure 160 to 200 mm Hg ) with electrocardiographically documented LVH . The study , which will continue for at least 4 years and until 1,040 patients experience one primary endpoint , has been design ed with a statistical power that will detect a difference of at least 15 % between groups in the incidence of combined cardiovascular morbidity and mortality . It is also the first prospect i ve study with adequate power to link reversal of LVH to reduction in major cardiovascular events . The rationale of the study , which will involve more than 800 clinical centers in Sc and inavia , the United Kingdom , and the United States , is discussed , and the major features of its design and general organization are described . On April 30 , 1997 , when inclusion was stopped , 9,218 patients had been r and omized Summary The ABCD ( Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes ) Trial is a large , prospect i ve , r and omized clinical trial of 950 patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus ( NIDDM ) design ed to compare the effects of intensive blood pressure control with moderate control on the prevention and progression of diabetic nephropathy , retinopathy , cardiovascular disease , and neuropathy in NIDDM . The secondary objective is to determine equivalency of the effects of a calcium channel blocker ( nisoldipine ) and an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor ( enalapril ) as a first-line antihypertensive agent in the prevention and /or progression of these diabetic vascular complications . The study consists of two study population s aged 40–74 years , 470 hypertensive patients ( diastolic blood pressure of ≥ 90.0 mmHg at time of r and omization ) and 480 normotensive patients ( diastolic blood pressure of 80.0 mmHg at time of r and omization ) . The study duration is 5 years and is scheduled to end in May of 1998 . Patients are r and omized to receive either intensive antihypertensive drug therapy or moderate antihypertensive drug therapy . Patients are also r and omized to nisoldipine or enalapril , with open-label medications added if further blood pressure control is necessary . The primary outcome measure is glomerular filtration rate as assessed by 24-h creatinine clearance . Secondary outcome measures are urinary albumin excretion , left ventricular hypertrophy , retinopathy , and neuropathy . Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality will also be evaluated . Given the data showing the impact of hypertension on complications in NIDDM , the ABCD Trial is design ed to determine if intensive antihypertensive therapy will be more efficacious than moderate antihypertensive therapy on the outcome of diabetic complications in NIDDM . [ Diabetologia ( 1996 ) 39 : 1646–1654
There is no RCT evidence demonstrating that anti-hypertensive drugs reduce mortality or morbidity in patients with hypertensive emergencies .
Furthermore , there is insufficient RCT evidence to determine which drug or drug class is most effective in reducing mortality and morbidity .
There were some minor differences in the degree of blood pressure lowering when one class of antihypertensive drug is compared to another .
However , the clinical significance is unknown .
BACKGROUND Hypertensive emergencies , marked hypertension associated with acute end-organ damage , are life-threatening conditions .
Many anti-hypertensive drugs have been used in these clinical setting s. The benefits and harms of such treatment and the best first-line treatment are not known .
OBJECTIVES To answer the following two questions using r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ): 1 ) does anti-hypertensive drug therapy as compared to placebo or no treatment affect mortality and morbidity in patients presenting with a hypertensive emergency ?
2 ) Does one first-line antihypertensive drug class as compared to another antihypertensive drug class affect mortality and morbidity in these patients ?