JoVE Visualize What is visualize?
Stop Reading. Start Watching.
Advanced Search
Stop Reading. Start Watching.
Regular Search
Find video protocols related to scientific articles indexed in Pubmed.
?-Blockers in hypertension: studies and meta-analyses over the years.
Can J Cardiol
PUBLISHED: 02-21-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
?-Blockers are among the most commonly used medications in the treatment of hypertension. However, 45 years after their initial indication for that treatment, their place in the treatment of hypertensive patients is under evaluation and their usefulness has been questioned based on evidence from meta-analyses of clinical trials. The ?-blocker class consists of various agents with diverse pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties including lipo- and hydrophilicity, duration of action, intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, vasodilation, and metabolism linked to genetic polymorphisms. Because of their various properties, some ?-blockers are indicated for cardiovascular conditions such as angina, rate control of atrial fibrillation, chronic heart failure, and after myocardial infarction, and other indications such as migraine and essential tremor. There have been more than 17 large trials influencing the recommendations on the use of these agents in the treatment of hypertension. The results of these trials initially led to the widespread recommendation for the use of ?-blockers in the management of hypertension. However, the recent multiple meta-analyses using these trials have raised a controversy on their place in that treatment. The Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations have included ?-blockers as a first-line treatment option for patients younger than 60 years of age based on the evidence from these large trials, and this has been supported by 2 of the meta-analyses. This article reviews these studies to help clinicians better understand the role of ?-blockers in managing hypertension.
Related JoVE Video
Effects of demographics on the antihypertensive efficacy of triple therapy with amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide for moderate to severe hypertension.
Curr Med Res Opin
PUBLISHED: 07-01-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
To compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of once-daily triple therapy with amlodipine (Aml) 10 mg, valsartan (Val) 320 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg versus dual-therapy combinations of these components in patients with moderate to severe hypertension. Research design: Subgroup analysis of a multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled trial.
Related JoVE Video
Increasing the doses of both diuretics and angiotensin receptor blockers is beneficial in subjects with uncontrolled systolic hypertension.
Can J Cardiol
PUBLISHED: 10-09-2010
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Blood pressure (BP) control is frequently difficult to achieve in patients with predominantly elevated systolic BP. Consequently, these patients frequently require combination therapy including a thiazide diuretic such as hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and an agent blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Current clinical practice usually limits the daily dose of HCTZ to 25 mg. This often leads to the necessity of using additional antihypertensive agents to control BP in a high proportion of patients.
Related JoVE Video
24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure response to combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in stage 2 hypertension by ethnicity: the EVALUATE study.
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)
PUBLISHED: 09-24-2010
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Several studies reported racial/ethnic differences in blood pressure (BP) response to antihypertensive monotherapy. In a 10-week study of stage 2 hypertension, 320/25 mg valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) reduced ambulatory BP (ABP) significantly more effectively than 10/25 mg amlodipine/HCTZ. Results (post hoc analysis) are described in Caucasians (n=256), African Americans (n=79), and Hispanics (n=86). Compared with clinic-measured BP (no significant treatment-group differences in ethnic subgroups), least-squares mean reductions from baseline to week 10 in mean ambulatory systolic BP (MASBP) and mean ambulatory diastolic BP (MADBP) favored valsartan/HCTZ over amlodipine/HCTZ in Caucasians (-21.9/-12.7 mm Hg vs -17.6/-9.5 mm Hg; P=.0004/P<.0001). No treatment-group differences in MASBP/MADBP were observed in African Americans (-17.3/-10.6 vs -17.9/-9.5; P=.76/P=.40) or Hispanics (-17.9/-9.7 vs -14.2/-7.2; P=.20/P=.17). Based on ABP monitoring, valsartan/HCTZ is more effective than amlodipine/HCTZ in lowering ABP in Caucasians. In African Americans and Hispanics, both regimens are similarly effective.
Related JoVE Video
Blood-pressure reduction with LCZ696, a novel dual-acting inhibitor of the angiotensin II receptor and neprilysin: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active comparator study.
Lancet
PUBLISHED: 03-16-2010
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
LCZ696 is a first-in-class inhibitor of the angiotensin II receptor and neprilysin. We aimed to establish whether the dual actions of LCZ696 lead to further lowering of blood pressure, compared with the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan.
Related JoVE Video
Effect of intensive versus standard blood pressure lowering on diastolic function in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and diastolic dysfunction.
Hypertension
PUBLISHED: 12-07-2009
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Diastolic dysfunction may precede development of heart failure in hypertensive patients. We randomized 228 patients with uncontrolled hypertension, preserved ejection fraction, and diastolic dysfunction to 2 targeted treatment strategies: intensive, with a systolic blood pressure target of <130 mm Hg, or standard, with a systolic blood pressure target of <140 mm Hg, using a combination of valsartan, either 160 or 320 mg, plus amlodipine, either 5 or 10 mg, with other antihypertensive medications as needed. Echocardiographic assessment of diastolic function was performed at baseline and after 24 weeks in a prospective, open-label, blinded end point design. Blood pressure was reduced significantly in both groups, from 161.2+/-13.9/90.1+/-12.0 to 130.8+/-12.3/74.9+/-9.1 mm Hg (P<0.0001) in the intensive arm and from 162.1+/-13.2/93.7+/-12.2 to 137.0+/-12.9/79.6+/-11.0 mm Hg (P<0.0001) in the standard arm (P<0.003 for between-group comparisons). Myocardial relaxation velocity improved from 7.6+/-1.1 to 9.2+/-1.7 cm/s (Delta 1.54+/-1.4 cm/s; P<0.0001) in the intensive arm and from 7.5+/-1.3 to 9.0+/-1.9 cm/s (Delta 1.48+/-1.6 cm/s; P<0.0001) in the standard arm, with no difference between the 2 strategies in the achieved improvement (P=0.58). The degree of improvement in annular relaxation velocity was associated with the extent of systolic blood pressure reduction, and patients with the lowest achieved systolic blood pressure had the highest final diastolic relaxation velocities.
Related JoVE Video
Valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide for first-line therapy in hypertension.
Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther
PUBLISHED: 12-04-2009
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Goal blood pressure levels are only being achieved in approximately a third of hypertensive patients, which suggests that there is a need for new and/or improved approaches to the treatment of hypertension. The majority of patients with hypertension require combination therapy to control their blood pressure. The use of a combination of drugs with complementary mechanisms of action may provide greater efficacy and tolerability compared with monotherapy, and may allow more rapid achievement of target blood pressure. Moreover, the use of single-pill combinations has the potential to increase adherence and persistence, and reduce costs. The single-pill combination of valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide was recently approved by the US FDA for first-line use in hypertensive patients who are likely to need multiple drugs to achieve their blood pressure goals. The focus of this article is on those randomized, double-blind trials in which this combination was administered as first-line therapy in patients with essential hypertension.
Related JoVE Video
Triple antihypertensive therapy with amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide: a randomized clinical trial.
Hypertension
PUBLISHED: 05-26-2009
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Many patients with hypertension require > or =3 agents to achieve target blood pressure (BP). The efficacy/safety of the dual combinations of valsartan (Val)/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and amlodipine (Aml)/Val in hypertension are well established. This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy/safety of triple therapy with Aml/Val/HCTZ for moderate or severe hypertension (mean sitting systolic BP: > or =145 mm Hg; mean sitting diastolic BP: > or =100 mm Hg). The study included a single-blind, placebo run-in period, followed by double-blind treatment for 8 weeks; patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups titrated to Aml/Val/HCTZ 10/320/25 mg, Val/HCTZ 320/25 mg, Aml/Val 10/320 mg, or Aml/HCTZ 10/25 mg once daily. Dual-therapy recipients received half of the target doses of both agents for the first 2 weeks, titrating to target doses during week 3. Those on triple therapy received Val/HCTZ 160.0/12.5 mg during week 1, Aml/Val/HCTZ 5.0/160.0/12.5 mg during week 2, and target doses of all 3 of the agents during week 3. Of the 4285 patients enrolled, 2271 were randomly assigned to treatment, and 2060 completed the study. Triple therapy was significantly superior to all of the dual therapies in reducing mean sitting systolic BP and mean sitting diastolic BP from baseline to end point (all P<0.0001). Significantly more patients on triple therapy achieved overall BP control (<140/90 mm Hg; P<0.0001) and systolic and diastolic control (P< or =0.0002) compared with each dual therapy. Aml/Val/HCTZ was well tolerated. The benefits of triple therapy over dual therapy were observed regardless of age, sex, race, ethnicity, or baseline mean sitting systolic BP. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the efficacy/safety of treating moderate and severe hypertension with Aml/Val/HCTZ 10/320/25 mg.
Related JoVE Video
Effects of force-titrated valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide versus amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide on ambulatory blood pressure in patients with stage 2 hypertension: the EVALUATE study.
Blood Press Monit
PUBLISHED: 04-23-2009
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Previous studies using the combination of angiotensin-receptor blockers and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) have shown superior ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) reduction in study participants with stage 2 hypertension compared with monotherapy.
Related JoVE Video
Telmisartan or valsartan alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide: a review.
Clin. Exp. Hypertens.
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
The aim of this review was to compare telmisartan and valsartan in the treatment of hypertension. PubMed searches were conducted to identify randomized trials (n = 14) comparing the two agents, alone or combined with hydrochlorothiazide. With one exception, all studies with blood pressure reduction as primary endpoint showed significantly greater reductions with telmisartan than with valsartan. Other studies showed that telmisartan was associated with greater improvements in metabolic measures and inflammatory markers than valsartan. These findings suggest that pharmacologic differences between telmisartan and valsartan may translate into clinically relevant differences between the two drugs in the management of hypertension.
Related JoVE Video
Clinic and ambulatory blood pressure lowering effect of aliskiren/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide combination in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension: a randomized active-controlled trial.
J. Hypertens.
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
To evaluate the clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy and safety of an aliskiren/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) triple combination compared with the component dual combinations, in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension.
Related JoVE Video
The evolving role of ?-adrenergic receptor blockers in managing hypertension.
Can J Cardiol
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
?-Adrenergic blocking agents (or ?-blockers) have been widely used for the treatment of hypertension for the past 50 years, and continue to be recommended as a mainstay of therapy in many national guidelines. They have also been used in a variety of cardiovascular conditions commonly complicating hypertension, including angina pectoris, myocardial infarction (MI), acute and chronic heart failure, as well as conditions like essential tremor and migraine. Moreover, they have played a primary role in controlling blood pressure in patients with these specific comorbidities and in reducing cardiovascular risk with regard to the composite outcome of death, stroke, and MI among patients younger than 60 years of age. However, in patients 60 years of age or older, ?-blockers were not associated with significantly lower rates of MI, heart failure or death, and demonstrated higher rates of stroke compared with other first-line therapies. Consequently, the Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommends the use of ?-blockers as first-line therapy in hypertensive patients younger than 60 years of age but not for those age 60 and older, with the exception of patients with concomitant ?-blocker-requiring cardiac diseases. Several reports suggest that the lack of consistent outcome data may relate to the use of traditional ?-blockers such as atenolol and their ability only to reduce cardiac output, without beneficial effect on peripheral vascular resistance. The present report will describe the clinically relevant mechanisms of action of ?-blockers, their pharmacological differences, their metabolic effects, and their usefulness in patients with hypertension.
Related JoVE Video

What is Visualize?

JoVE Visualize is a tool created to match the last 5 years of PubMed publications to methods in JoVE's video library.

How does it work?

We use abstracts found on PubMed and match them to JoVE videos to create a list of 10 to 30 related methods videos.

Video X seems to be unrelated to Abstract Y...

In developing our video relationships, we compare around 5 million PubMed articles to our library of over 4,500 methods videos. In some cases the language used in the PubMed abstracts makes matching that content to a JoVE video difficult. In other cases, there happens not to be any content in our video library that is relevant to the topic of a given abstract. In these cases, our algorithms are trying their best to display videos with relevant content, which can sometimes result in matched videos with only a slight relation.