The study demonstrated that the combination of manidipine and delapril is as effective as losartan and hydrochlorothiazide in treatment of hypertension in type 2 diabetes.

Hypertension is an important cardiovascular risk factor and the goal of its pharmacologic treatment is to reduce morbidity and mortality. Treatment is usually initiated with a low dose of a single agent and titrated to a higher dose as required. As many as 50% of patients require the addition of a second agent to achieve satisfactory blood pressure control. The aim of this study was to assess the dose-response relationship of nitrendipine and enalapril alone or in fixed combination in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. A total of 496 patients were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, factorial-design, parallel-group clinical trial comparing placebo, nitrendipine (5, 10, and 20 mg) and enalapril (5, 10, and 20 mg) alone or in combination. After a single-blind, 2-week placebo run-in period, 414 patients whose diastolic blood pressure ranged between 90-109 mm Hg were randomly assigned to a treatment group. The combination of nitrendipine and enalapril, particularly regimens including nitrendipine 20 mg and enalapril 5 or 10 mg, were significantly superior to both monotherapies; mean diastolic blood pressure reductions from baseline to last visit were -12.5 and -14.3 mm Hg, respectively. Response surface analysis provided further evidence that these combinations were optimal in terms of anti-hypertensive efficacy. All treatments were well tolerated and the incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between groups. In summary, the anti-hypertensive efficacy of the combination was found to be superior to both monotherapies at any doses. The dose combination achieving the greatest blood pressure reduction was nitrendipine 20 mg and enalapril 10 mg.

We aimed to evaluate markers of vascular dysfunction in patients with resistant hypertension (RH). A group of 144 patients (61 years, 42% women) with essential RH were divided in two groups based on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). True RH (72%) was considered when 24-h blood pressure (BP) was ≥ 130 and/or 80 mmHg. Otherwise, patients were classified as white coat RH (28%). Hyperemia-induced forearm vasodilation (HIFV), serum inflammatory biomarkers (hs-CRP, s-ICAM-1, s-VCAM-1, e-selectin, p-selectin and MCP-1) and large (C1) and small arterial (C2) compliance (HDI/Pulse Wave CR 2000) were determined in all individuals. In comparison with patients with white coat RH, and after adjustment for age, office systolic BP and diabetes status, those with true RH had a more impaired HIFV (201 ± 159 vs 436 ± 157%; p < 0.001), increased e-selectin (53.1 ± 29.8 vs 40.7 ± 23.5 ng/ml; p = 0.035), and MCP-1 (445 ± 120 vs 386 ± 126 ng/ml; p = 0.027). No significant differences were observed in arterial compliance. Maximal HIFV inversely correlated with urinary albumin excretion (Rho: - 0.278; p = 0.004) and with some inflammatory biomarkers (MCP-1: - 0.441; p < 0.001, e-selectin: - 0.468; p < 0.001 and p-selectin: - 0.329; p = 0.001). We conclude that true RH, diagnosed by ABPM, is associated with a more severe degree of vascular dysfunction, as measured by HIFV and serum biomarkers, whereas other types of vascular alterations, such as compliance, are not directly linked with the level of BP.

In RH patients, the inability to microalbuminuria regression, either due to persistence or new appearance, independently predicts CVD.