ISI Web of Knowledge Take the next step  
Web of Science®
 
Previous Record (inactive) Record 1  of  1 Next Record (inactive)
Record from Web of Science®
Morbidity and mortality in patients randomised to double-blind treatment with a long-acting calcium-channel blocker or diuretic in the International Nifedipine GITS study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT)
Author(s): Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A, de Leeuw PW, Mancia G, Rosenthal T, Ruilope LM
Source: LANCET    Volume: 356    Issue: 9227    Pages: 366-372    Published: JUL 29 2000  
Times Cited: 562     References: 29     
Abstract: Background The efficacy of antihypertensive drugs newer than diuretics and beta-blockers has not been established. We compared the effects of the calcium-channel blocker nifedipine once daily with the diuretic combination co-amilozide on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients with hypertension.

Methods We did a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial in Europe and Israel in 6321 patients aged 55-80 years with hypertension (blood pressure greater than or equal to 150/95 mm Hg, or greater than or equal to 160 mm Hg systolic). Patients had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. We randomly assigned patients nifedipine 30 mg in a long-acting gastrointestinal-transport-system (GITS) formulation (n=3157), or co-amilozide (hydrochlorothiazide 25 mu g plus amiloride 2.5 mg; n=3164). Dose titration was by dose doubling, and addition of atenolol 25-50 mg or enalapril 5-10 mg. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, or stroke. Analysis was done by intention to treat.

Findings Primary outcomes occurred in 200 (6.3%) patients in the nifedipine group and in 182 (5.8%) in the co-amilozide group (18.2 vs 16.5 events per 1000 patient-years; relative risk 1.10 [95% CI 0.91-1.34], p=0.35). Overall mean blood pressure fell from 173/99 mm Hg (SD 14/8) to 138/82 mm Hg (12/7). There was an 8% excess of withdrawals from the nifedipine group because of peripheral oedema (725 vs 518, p<0.0001), but serious adverse events were more frequent in the co-amilozide group (880 vs 796, p=0.02). Deaths were mainly non-vascular (nifedipine 176 vs co-amilozide 172; p=0.81). 80% of the primary events occurred in patients receiving randomised treatment (157 nifedipine, 147 co-amilozide, difference 0.33% [-0.7 to 1.4]).

Interpretation Nifedipine once daily and co-amilozide were equally effective in preventing overall cardiovascular or cerebrovascular complications. The choice of drug can be decided by tolerability and blood-pressure response rather than long-term safety or efficacy.

Document Type: Article
Language: English
Reprint Address: Brown, MJ (reprint author), Addenbrookes Hosp, Clin Pharmacol Unit, ACCI, Level 6,Box 110, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, England
Addresses:
1. Univ Cambridge, Clin Pharmacol Unit, Cambridge, England
2. Univ Cambridge, Ctr Appl Med Stat, Cambridge, England
3. Univ Paris, Hop Henri Mondor, Serv Cardiol, Paris, France
4. Univ Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands
5. Univ Milan, Cattedra Med Interna, Milan, Italy
6. Tel Aviv Univ, Chaim Sheba Med Ctr, Hypertens Unit, IL-69978 Tel Aviv, Israel
7. Univ Madrid, Hosp 12 Octubre, Dept Nephrol, Madrid 3, Spain
Publisher: LANCET LTD, 84 THEOBALDS RD, LONDON WC1X 8RR, ENGLAND
Subject Category: Medicine, General & Internal
IDS Number: 339NZ
ISSN: 0140-6736
Previous Record (inactive) Record 1  of  1 Next Record (inactive)
Record from Web of Science®
  
Thomson Reuters Logo