aliskiren versus amlodipine | |||
ACCELERATE, 2011 NCT00797862 | versus | essential hypertension, were aged 18 years or older, and had systolic blood pressure between 150 and 180 mm Hg | |
aliskiren versus hydrochlorothiazide | |||
Schmieder (vs HCTZ), 2009 | aliskiren 300 mg versus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg | patients with essential hypertension | double blind Follow-up duration: 20 weeks |
aliskiren versus losartan | |||
ALLAY, 2009 NCT00219141 | aliskiren 300 mg versus losartan 100 mg | patients with hypertension, increased ventricular wall thickness, and body mass index >25 kg/m2 | open Follow-up duration: 9 months |
aliskiren versus placebo | |||
AVOID, 2008 NCT00097955 | aliskiren (150 mg daily for 3 months, followed by an increase in dosage to 300 mg daily for another 3 months versus placebo | patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes with nephropathy | double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months 15 countries |
aliskiren versus ramipril | |||
Andersen, 2008 | aliskiren 150 mg (up to 300mg) daily versus ramipril 5 mg (up to 10mg) daily | double blind Follow-up duration: 26 weeks | |
amlodipine versus atenolol | |||
ASCOT-BPLA, 2005 | amlodipine5–10 mg adding perindopril 4–8 mg as required versus atenolol 50–100 mg adding bendroflumethiazide 1·25–2·5 mg and potassium as required | patients with hypertension who were aged 40–79 years and had at least three other cardiovascular risk factors.ÿ | open Follow-up duration: 5.5 y Nordic countries and UK |
amlodipine versus chlorthalidone | |||
ALLHAT (CCB vs diu), 2002 | Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d , Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d , Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d
, Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d
versus chlorthalidone 12.5 to 25 mg/d | participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk factor | Double aveugle Follow-up duration: 4.9y US |
amlodipine versus lisinopril | |||
ALLHAT (CCB vs ACEI), 2002 | Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d , Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d , Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d versus lisinopril 10 to 40 mg/d | participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk factor | Double aveugle Follow-up duration: 4.9y US |
amlodipine versus metoprolol | |||
AASK (amlodipine vs metoprolol), 2002 | Amlodipine 5-10 mg/d versus metoprolol 50-200 mg/d | African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (GFR, 20-65 mL/min per 1.73m2) | Follow-up duration: 3·0y US |
amlodipine versus placebo | |||
IDNT (amlodipine vs pbo), 2001 | Amlodipine 10mg/d versus placebo | hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes | Double blind Follow-up duration: 2·6 |
amlodipine versus ramipril | |||
AASK (amlodipine vs ramipril), 2002 | Amlodipine 5-10 mg/d versus ramipril 2.5-10 mg/d | African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (GFR, 20-65 mL/min per 1.73m2) | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3·0 US |
amlodipine plus benazepril versus hydrochlorothiazide plus benazepril | |||
ACCOMPLISH, 2008 NCT00170950 | benazepril 40mg plus amlodipine 5mg daily versus benazepril 40mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg daily | patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events | double blind Follow-up duration: 36 months US, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland |
ARBs versus control | |||
Suzuki, 2008 | ARBs (valsartan, candesartan, and losartan) versus no ARBs | patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease on dialysis | open |
atenolol versus bendroflumethiazide | |||
MRC I (vs diuretics), 1985 | Propranolol versus Bendroflumethiazide. | men and women aged 35-64 years with mild hypertension (diastolic pressure 90-109 mm Hg | double blind Follow-up duration: 5·5y |
atenolol versus control | |||
Coope, 1986 | atenolol and bendrofluazide , Atenolol versus Open control | patients aged 60 to 79 years | open Follow-up duration: 4·4y |
atenolol versus hydrochlorothiazide+amiloride | |||
MRC old (vs diuretics), 1992 | Atenolol versus Hydrochlorothiazide/amiloride | hypertensive patients aged 65-74 | double blind Follow-up duration: 5·8y UK |
atenolol versus placebo | |||
MRC I (vs placebo), 1985 | Propranolol versus Placebo | men and women aged 35-64 yearswith mild hypertension (diastolic pressure 90-109 mm Hg | double blind Follow-up duration: 5.5y |
MRC old (vs placebo), 1992 | Atenolol versus Placebo | patients aged 65-74 | double blind Follow-up duration: 5.8y UK |
Dutch TIA, 1993 | Atenolol 50mg/d versus Placebo | aspirin-treated patients with transient ischemic attack or nondisabling ischemic stroke | double blind Follow-up duration: 2·6y |
TEST, 1995 | Atenolol versus Placebo | post stroke | Follow-up duration: 2·6y |
candesartan versus amlodipine | |||
CASE-J, 2008 | candesartan-based regimen versus amlodipine-based regimen | high-risk Japanese hypertensive patients | open (blinded assessment) Follow-up duration: 3.2 years Japan |
candesartan versus control | |||
Takahashi, 2006 | candesartan versus control | patients on chronic haemodialysis in stable condition and with no clinical evidence of cardiac disorders | open Follow-up duration: 19.4 months |
candesartan versus conventional treatment | |||
E-COST, 2005 | candesartan, 2 to 12 mg daily versus conventional antihypertensive drugs other than angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or ARBs | Japanese essential hypertensive subjects (sitting blood pressure 140-180/90-110 mmHg) aged 35-79 years | single-blind Japan |
E-COST-R, 2005 | candesartan versus conventional treatment | hypertensive subjects 60 to 75 years old with non-diabetic chronic renal insufficiency | open |
HIJ-CREATE, 2009 | angiotensin II receptor blocker-based therapy versus non-angiotensin II receptor blocker-based therapy | patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease and hypertension | open Follow-up duration: 4.2 y (median) Japan |
candesartan versus hydrochlorothiazide | |||
ALPINE, 2003 | candesartan versus hydrochlorothiazide | newly detected hypertensives | double-blind Follow-up duration: 1 year Sweden |
candesartan versus placebo | |||
SCOPE, 2003 | candesartan, 8–16 mg once daily (target 160/90) versus placebo | patients aged 70–89 years, with systolic blood pressure 160– 179 mmHg, and/or diastolic blood pressure 90–99 mmHg, and a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) test score > 24 | double-blind Follow-up duration: 3.7 y (mean) 15 countries |
captopril versus diuretic or beta-blocker | |||
CAPPP, 1999 | captopril 50mg/d versus beta-blocker (not specified) or diuretic (not specified) | Patients aged 25–66 years with a measured diastolic bloodpressure of 100 mm Hg or more on two occasions | Open Follow-up duration: 6.1 y Sweden and Finland |
UKPDS-HDS, 1998 | captopril started at 25mg twice daily up to 50 mg twice dialy (target blood pressure of <150/<85 mmHG) versus atenolol started at 50mg daily up to 100mg if required(target blood pressure of <150/<85 mmHG) | HBP+DM | Open Follow-up duration: 8·4 y England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland |
chlorthalidone versus placebo | |||
SHEP-pilot, 1989 | chlorthalidone versus placebo | elderly participants with untreated blood pressures of greater than 160/less than 90 mm Hg | double blind Follow-up duration: 2.8y |
VA-NHLBI, 1977 | chlorthalidone 50mg/d versus placebo | patients aged 21 to 50 years with diastolic BP between 85 to 105 mm Hg | Double aveugle Follow-up duration: 1.4 y USA |
SHEP, 1991 NCT00000514 | chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg/d , chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg/d , chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg/d versus placebo | patients aged 60 years and above with Systolic BP between 160 and 219 mm Hg and diastolic BP less than 90 mm Hg | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4.4 y |
deserpidine +methylclothiazide versus placebo | |||
HSCS, 1974 | deserpidine 1mg/d + methylclothiazide 10mg/d versus placebo | stroke | Double blind Follow-up duration: 2.3y USA |
diltiazem versus diuretic or beta-blocker | |||
NORDIL, 2000 | diltiazem 180-360 daily versus beta-blocker (not specified) or diuretic (not specified) | hypertensive patients, aged 50–74 years | Open Follow-up duration: up to 5 years Norway, Sweden |
diuretic and rauwolfia serpentina versus placebo | |||
USPHS, 1977 | diuretic and rauwolfia serpentina versus placebo | subjects, ages 21-55, with diastolic blood pressures between 90 and 115 mm Hg | double blind Follow-up duration: 7.0 y |
enalapril versus diuretics | |||
ANBP2, 2003 | enalapril versus hydrochlorothiazide | subjects with hypertension 65 to 84 years | open Follow-up duration: 4.1 y Australia |
enalapril versus nisoldipine | |||
ABCD (H), 1998 | enalapril versus nisoldipine | patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and hypertension | double blind Follow-up duration: 5·3 y |
felopidine or israpidine versus diuretic or beta-blocker | |||
STOP-2 (CCB vs diurectic or beta-blocker), 1999 | felodipine 2·5 mg or isradipine 2–5 mg daily versus conventional antihypertensivedrugs (atenolol 50 mg, metoprolol 100 mg,pindolol 5 mg, or hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg plus amiloride2.5 mg daily | patients aged 70–84 years with hypertension (blood pressure >180 mm Hg systolic, >105 mm Hg diastolic, or both). | Open Follow-up duration: up to 6 years |
High-dose diuretics versus beta-blockers | |||
MRC (diu vs BB), 1985 | High-dose diuretics versus ß-Blockers | Follow-up duration: 4.9y | |
High-dose diuretics versus control | |||
HDFP, 1979 NCT00000485 | High-dose diuretics versus Usual careb | persons with high blood pressure aged 30 to 69 years | Follow-up duration: 5 y US |
High-dose diuretics versus placebo | |||
VA II, 1970 | High-dose diuretics versus Placebo | male hypertensive patients with diastolic blood pressures averaging 90 to 114 mm Hg | Follow-up duration: 3.3y |
VA-I, 1967 | High-dose diuretics versus Placebo | Follow-up duration: 1.5y | |
Barraclough, 1973 | High-dose diuretics versus Placebo | Follow-up duration: 2.0 y | |
hydrochlorothiazide + amiloride versus placebo | |||
MRC old, 1992 | versus | hypertensive patients aged 64-75 | |
hydrochlorothiazide + triamterene versus placebo | |||
Kuramoto, 1981 | hydrochlorothiazide + triamterene versus placebo | patients over the age of 60 with sitting diastolic blood pressure on placebo treatment in the range 90-119 mm Hg and a systolic pressure in the range 160-239 mm Hg | double blind Follow-up duration: 4.0y |
EWPHE, 1985 | hydrochlorothiazide + triamterene , hydrochlorothiazide + triamterene versus placebo | patients over the age of 60 with sitting diastolic blood pressure on placebo treatment in the range 90-119 mm Hg and a systolic pressure in the range 160-239 mm Hg | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4.3 y |
indapamide versus placebo | |||
HYVET, 2008 NCT00122811 | indapamide sustained release 1.5 mg/d + perindopril 2-4mg/d to obtain SBP<150 and DBP<80 versus placebo | patients 80 years or older with persistent hypertension defined as a sustained systolic BP of 160 mm Hg or higher | Double blind Follow-up duration: 1.8y (median) Western and Eastern Europe, China, Australasia, and North Africa |
PATS, 1995 | indapamide 2.5 mg/d versus placebo | Double blind Follow-up duration: 2y China | |
irbesartan versus amlodipine | |||
IDNT (irbesartan vs amlodipine), 2001 | Irbesartan 300mg/d (with a target of 135/85) versus amlodipine 10mg/d (with a target of 135/85) | hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes | double-blind Follow-up duration: 2·6y worldwide |
irbesartan versus placebo | |||
IDNT (irbesartan vs pbo), 2001 | Irbesartan 300mg/d (target 135/85) versus placebo | hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes | double-blind Follow-up duration: 2.6 y worldwide |
IRMA 2, 2001 | irbesartan 150 mg daily or 300 mg daily versus placebo | hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria | double-blind Follow-up duration: 2 years multinational |
isradipine versus hydrochlorothiazide | |||
MIDAS, 1996 | isradipine 2.5-5.0 mg twice daily versus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5-25 mg Twice daily | HBP | Follow-up duration: 3y |
lacidipine versus atenolol | |||
ELSA, 2002 | Lacidipine versus atenolol | patients with hypertension | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4·0y |
lacidipine versus chlorthalidone | |||
SHELL, 2003 | lacidipine 4 mg/d versus chlorthalidone 12.5 mg/d | elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension > or = 60 years | Follow-up duration: 3·6?y |
LCZ696 versus placebo | |||
Ruilope, 2010 | LCZ696 for 8 weeks versus placebo | patients with mild to moderate hypertension | double blind Follow-up duration: 8 weeks 18 countries |
lisinopril versus amlodipine | |||
ALLHAT (ACEI vs amlodipine), 2002 | Lisinopril 10 to 40 mg/d versus amlodipine 2.5 to 10 mg/d | participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk fact | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4.9 y US |
lisinopril versus diuretics | |||
ALLHAT (ACEI vs chlorthalidone), 2002 | lisinopril 10 to 40 mg/d versus chlorthalidone 12.5 to 25 mg/d | participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk factor | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4·9 y US |
losartan versus atenolol | |||
LIFE, 2002 | losartan versus atenolol | patients aged 55–80 years, with previously treated or untreated hypertension (sitting blood pressure 160–200/95–115 mm Hg) and ECG signs of LVH. | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4.8 y (mean) USA, Europe |
losartan versus placebo | |||
RENAAL, 2001 | lLosartan 50 to 100 mg once daily versus placebo | patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy | double-blind Follow-up duration: 3.4 years |
nicardipine versus trichlormethiazide | |||
NICS-EH, 1999 | Nicardipine SR 20mg twice daily versus trichlormethiazide 2mg once daily | >=60 years of age with systolic blood pressure of 160 to 220 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure <115 mm Hg | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4.5 years |
nifedipine versus atenolol+chlorthalidone | |||
Castel, 1994 | Nifedipine 20mg/d versus Clonidine 0.15mg/d (n=61) or atenolol 100mg/d + chlorthalidone 25mg/d | ||
nifedipine versus hydrochlorothiazide+amiloride | |||
INSIGHT, 2000 | nifedipine GITS 30mg/d versus hydrochlorothiazide 25mg/d + amiloride 2.5mg/d | HBP + RF | Double blind Follow-up duration: at least 3 years |
nitrendipine versus placebo | |||
SYST-EUR, 1997 | nitrendipine 10-40 mg daily , nitrendipine 10-40 mg daily versus placebo | HBP, >=60 years | Double aveugle Follow-up duration: 2·6y 23 countries across Europe |
olmesartan 40 mg versus olmesartan 20 mg plus a calcium-channel blocker | |||
OSCAR, 2011 NCT00134160 | high-dose olmesartan 40 mg per day versus 20-mg/day olmesartan comined with standard dose of amlodipine or azelnidipine | high-risk elderly Japanese hypertension patients | Japan |
oxprenolol versus placebo | |||
IPPPSH, 1985 | Oxprenolol versus Placebo | men and women aged 40-64 years with uncomplicated essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressures 100-125 mmHg) | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4·0y |
propranolol versus bendroflumethiazide | |||
Berglund, 1986 | Propranolol versus Bendroflumethiazide. | patients 21 to 70 years with essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressures 100-120 mm Hg) | Follow-up duration: 10y |
ramipril versus amlodipine | |||
AASK (ramipril vs amlodipine), 2002 | ramipril 2.5-10 mg/d versus amlodipine 5-10 mg/d | African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (GFR, 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3·0 y US |
ramipril versus metoprolol | |||
AASK (ramipril vs metoprolol), 2002 | ramipril 2.5-10 mg/d versus metoprolol 50-200 mg/d | African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (GFR, 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4·1 y US |
telmisartan versus enalapril | |||
DETAIL, 2004 | telmisartan 80 mg daily versus enalapril 20 mg daily | subjects with type 2 diabetes and early nephropathy | double-blind Follow-up duration: 5 year |
telmisartan versus placebo | |||
PROPHESS, 2008 NCT00153062 | telmisartan 80 mg daily versus placebo | patients who recently had an ischemic stroke | double blind Follow-up duration: 2.5 y 35 countries |
thiazide diuretics versus control | |||
Carter, 1970 | thiazide versus ? | Open Follow-up duration: 3.6 y NA | |
Oslo (Hegeland), 1980 | step 1: hydrochlorothiazide 50mg/d, step 2: alpha methyldopa 250-500mg x2/d or propranolol 40-160mg x2/d, versus no treatment | men, aged 40 to 49 years, without target organ damage, with systolic blood pressures between 150 and 179 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure below 110 mm Hg | Open Follow-up duration: 5.5 y Oslo |
ANBPS (Australian ), 1980 | step 1:chlorothiazide 500 mg/d, step 2: chlorothoazide 500mg x2/d or methyldopa, propranolol, pindolol added, step 3: hydralazine or clonidine added versus placebo (without adjustement according to the BP!) | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4 y Australia | |
thiazide diuretics versus placebo | |||
MCR 35-64 (diuretics vs pbo), 1985 | bendrofluazide 10 mg/d (step 2: methyldopa) versus placebo | mild hypertension | single blind Follow-up duration: 4.9y NA |
valsartan versus amlodipine | |||
VALUE, 2004 NCT00129233 | valsartan based regimen versus amlodipine based regimen | patients, aged 50 years or older with treated or untreated hypertension and high risk of cardiac events | Double blind Follow-up duration: 4.2 y (mean) 31 countries |
various ACEI versus calcium-channel blocker | |||
STOP-2 (ACEI vs felodipine or isradipine), 1999 | Enalapril or lisinopril
, enalapril 10 mg or lisinopril 10 mg daily
versus felodipine 2.5 mg or isradipine 2-5 mg daily | patients aged 70-84 years with hypertension (blood pressure > or = 180 mm Hg systolic, > or = 105 mm Hg diastolic, or both) | Open Follow-up duration: 5·0 y Sweden |
various ACEI versus diuretic or beta-blocker | |||
STOP 2 (ACEI vs diurectic or beta-blocker), 1999 | enalapril 10 mg or lisinopril10 mg daily versus conventional antihypertensive drugs (atenolol 50 mg, metoprolol 100 mg, pindolol 5 mg, or hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg plus amiloride 2·5 mg daily) | patients aged 70–84 years with hypertension (blood pressure >180 mm Hg systolic, >105 mm Hg diastolic, or both). | Open Follow-up duration: 5.0 y Sweden |
various ACEI versus nifedipine | |||
JMIC-B, 2002 | ACE inhibitor versus nifedipine | HBP+CHD | Open Follow-up duration: 3·0 y Japan |
various beta-blockers versus diuretics | |||
Yurenev, 1992 | hypotensive drugs including beta-blockers versus same combination of drugs including diuretics | hypertensive patients with different degrees of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) | Follow-up duration: 4·0y |
HAPPHY, 1988 | Atenolol, Metoprolol, Propranolol versus Hydrochlorothiazide, Bendroflumethiazide | Men aged 40-64 years with mild to moderate hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 100-130 mmHg) without previous CHD, stroke | open Follow-up duration: 3·8y |
various beta-blockers versus placebo | |||
STOP, 1991 | active antihypertensive therapy (Thiazide and amiloride or beta-blocker) , Atenolol, Metoprolol, Pindolol, HCTZ/Ami versus Placebo | hypertensive men and women aged 70-84 years | Double blind Follow-up duration: 2·1y Swezden |
verapamil versus atenolol | |||
INVEST (Pepine), 2003 NCT00133692 | verapamil sustained release 240mg/d versus atenolol 50mg/d | patients with hypertension and CAD | Follow-up duration: 2.7 y 14 countries |
verapamil versus chlorthalidone | |||
VHAS, 1998 | verapamil SR 240 mg/d versus chlorthalidone 25mg/d | HBP | Open Follow-up duration: 2 years |
verapamil versus diuretic or beta-blocker | |||
CONVINCE, 2003 | controlled-onset extendedrelease(COER) verapamil 180mg/d versus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg/d or atenolol 50 mg/d(investigator choice prior to randomization) | hypertension with 1 or more additional risk factors for cardiovascular disease | Double blind Follow-up duration: 3 y 15 countries |
in first
in second