| ACE inhibitor versus calcium-channel blocker | |||
| STOP-2 (ACEI vs CCB) (diabetic subgroup), 2000 | ACE inhibitor versus calcium antagonists | diabetic (subgroup) elderly patients aged 70-84 years | open with blind assessment Follow-up duration: 5.03y Sweden |
| ACE inhibitor versus diuretic or beta-blocker | |||
| STOP-2 (ACEI, diabetic subgroup), 2000 | ACE inhibitor versus conventional treatment (diuretic or beta-blocker) | diabetic (subgroup) elderly patients aged 70-84 years with hypertension | open with blind assessment Follow-up duration: 5.03y Sweden |
| ACE inhibitors versus placebo | |||
| HOPE (diabetic subgroup), 2000 | ramipril 10 mg once per day orally versus placebo | patients with diabetes (sub group), aged 55 years or older, who had a previous cardiovascular event or at least one other cardiovascular risk factor, no clinical proteinuria, heart failure, or low ejection fraction | double-blind Follow-up duration: 4.5 years North, South america, Europe |
| 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 |
| ALLHAT (amlodipine vs chlor, diabetic subgroup), 2002 | amlodipine versus chlorthalidone | diabetic (subgroup) participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension | double-blind Follow-up duration: 4.9 y |
| amlodipine versus fosinopril | |||
| FACET, 1997 | amlodipine (long acting) 10 mg daily versus fosinopril 20 mg daily | hypertensive patients with NIDDM | open Follow-up duration: 3.5 y Italy |
| 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 |
| IDNT (amlodipine vs PBO), 2001 | Amlodipine 10 mg daily versus placebo | hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes | double-blind Follow-up duration: 2.6 years Worldwide |
| Tepel et al, 2008 NCT00124969 | Amlodipine 10 mg/day versus matched placebo | hypertensive haemodialysis patients | double blind Follow-up duration: 19 montsh median (8-30) |
| 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 |
| angioplasty versus medical therapy | |||
| EMMA, 1998 | angioplasty versus antihypertensive drug treatment | hypertensive patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. | open Follow-up duration: 6 months France |
| SNRASCG, 1998 | percutaneous transluminal angioplasty versus medical therapy | hypertensive patients with unilateral or bilateral disease | Follow-up duration: 12 months United Kingdom |
| DRASTIC, 2000 | percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty versus drug therapy | patients with hypertension who had atherosclerotic renal-artery stenosis (defined as a decrease in luminal diameter of 50 percent or more) and a serum creatinine concentration of 2.3 mg per deciliter (200 micromol per liter) or less | open Follow-up duration: 12 months Netherlands |
| ASTRAL, 2009 | revascularization in addition to medical therapy versus medical therapy alone | patients with atherosclerotic renovascular disease | open Follow-up duration: 33.6 months United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand |
| STAR, 2009 | stent placement and medical treatment versus medical treatment alone (antihypertensive treatment, statin, aspirin) | patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and impaired renal function | open Follow-up duration: 24 months Netherlands, France |
| NITER, 2009 | versus | Follow-up duration: 43 months Italy | |
| ARBs versus control | |||
| Suzuki, 2008 | ARBs (valsartan, candesartan, and losartan) versus no ARBs | patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease on dialysis | open |
| aspirin versus placebo | |||
| HOT, 1998 | aspirin 75 mg daily versus placebo | patients aged 50-80 with hypertension and diastolic blood pressure between 100 mmHG and 115 mmHG | Double blind Follow-up duration: mean 3.8 y (range 3.3-4.9y) Europe, North and South America, and Asia |
| 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 |
| Coope (subgroup ), 1986 | atenolol and bendrofluazide versus control | patients aged 60 to 79 years | double-blind Follow-up duration: 3·8y |
| 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 |
| atorvastatin versus placebo | |||
| ASCOT, 2003 | atorvastatin 10mg/d versus placebo | hypertensive patients aged 40-79 years with at least three other cardiovascular risk factors | double blind Follow-up duration: 3.3 years UK et Scandinavie |
| benazepril + amlodipine versus benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide | |||
| ACCOMPLISH (diabetic subgroup), 2010 NCT00170950 | benazepril, combined with amlodipine versus benazepril, combined with hydrochlorothiazide | patients with diabetes (subgroup) and hypertension at high risk of cardiovascular and related events | double-blind Follow-up duration: 36 months US, Norway, Denmark, Finland |
| beta-blockers + diuretics versus placebo | |||
| CASTEL (subgroup ), 1994 | active antihypertensive therapy (thiazide or beta-blockers) versus control | open Follow-up duration: 6·8y | |
| beta-blockers or diuretics versus placebo | |||
| STOP (subgroup ), 1991 | active antihypertensive therapy (three beta-blockers and one diuretic) versus placebo | hypertensive Swedish men and women aged 70-84 years | double-blind Follow-up duration: 2·1 y Sweden |
| calcium-channel blocker versus diuretic or beta-blocker | |||
| STOP-2 (CCB, diabetic subgroup), 2000 | Calcium-channel blocker versus diuretic or beta-blocker | diabetic (subgroup) elderly patients aged 70-84 years | open with blind assessment Follow-up duration: 5.03y Sweden |
| 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 | |||
| TROPHY, 2006 NCT00227318 | candesartan during 2y followed by 2y
of placebo versus placebo | subjects with repeated measurements of systolic pressure of 130 to 139 mm Hg and diastolic pressure of 89 mm Hg or lower, or systolic pressure of 139 mm Hg or lower and diastolic pressure of 85 to 89 mm Hg | double-blind Follow-up duration: 4y USA |
| 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 |
| Candesartan versus usual care | |||
| HIJ-CREATE, 2009 | cardesartan adjusted dose for target arterial pressure of <130/85 mmHg versus usual care (non-ARB-based pharmacotherapy including angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitors) | hypertension with angiographically documented coronary artery disease (acute or stable) | open Follow-up duration: up to 60 months japan |
| candesartan versus usual care | |||
| Takahashi et al, 2006 | Candesartan 4-8mg/day versus Conventional treatment | chronic haemodialysis patients | open |
| Suzuki et al, 2008 | Candesartan 12 mg/day, losartan 100 mg/day, or valsartan 160 mg/day versus Conventional treatment | patients undergoing hemodialysis | open Follow-up duration: 1-5 years |
| captopril versus atenolol | |||
| UKPDS 39, 1998 | captopril 25 mg/d aiming at a BP <150/85 versus atenolol 50mg/d aiming at a BP <150/85 | hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes | open Follow-up duration: ND UK |
| captopril versus diuretic and/or beta-blockers | |||
| CAPP (diabetic subgroup), 1999 | Captopril initial dose of 50 mg daily given in one or two doses versus thiazide diuretic or beta-blocker | Patients aged 25-66 years with a measured diastolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or more on two occasions; subgroup of diabetic patients | open with blinded assessment Follow-up duration: 6.1 year Sweden, Finland |
| 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 |
| captopril or atenolol versus control | |||
| UKPDS 38, 1998 | tight control of blood pressure aiming at a BP <150/85 (with the use of captopril or atenolol as main treatment, other treatment were added if the control criteria were not met) versus less tight control aiming at a blood pressure of <180/105 (avoiding treatment with ACE inhibitors or beta-blockers) | hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes | open Follow-up duration: 8.4y (median) UK |
| carvedilol versus placebo | |||
| Cice et al, 2003 | Carvedilol 50 mg/day versus matched placebo | dialysis patients with dilated cardiomyopathy | Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| Nakao et al, 2007 | Carvedilol 20 mg/day versus matched placebo | ||
| 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 |
| SHEP (diabetic subgroup), 1996 | low dose of chlorthalidone (12.5-25.0 mg/d) with a step-up to atenolol (25.0-50.0 mg/d) or reserpine (0.05-0.10 mg/d) if needed versus placebo | men and women aged 60 years and older , non-insulin-treated diabetic (sub group) patients with isolated systolic hypertension (systolic BP >= 160 mm Hg; diastolic BP, <90 mm Hg) | double-blind Follow-up duration: 5 year |
| SHEP-P (subgroup ), 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 |
| SHEP (subgroup ), 1991 | chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg/d for step 1 versus placebo | patients aged 60 years and above | double blind Follow-up duration: 4·2y |
| darusentan versus placebo | |||
| DORADO-AC, | versus | ||
| DORADO, 2009 NCT00330369 | darusentan 50 mg, 100 mg or 300 mg versus placebo | patients with treatment-resistant hypertension | double blind Follow-up duration: 14 weeks North and South America, Europe, New Zealand, Australia |
| 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 and/or beta-blocker | |||
| NORDIL (diabetic subgroup), 2000 | Diltiazem 180–360 mg diltiazem daily at step one versus thiazide diuretic or a beta-blocker at step one | diabetic patients (subgroup), aged 50-74 years who had diastolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or more | open Follow-up duration: 4.5 y Norway, Sweden |
| 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 |
| EnligHTN system versus control | |||
| EnligHTN-IV, NCT01903187 | multielectrode renal-denervation system (St Jude) versus | ||
| 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 |
| fluvastatin versus placebo | |||
| HYRIM, 2005 | fluvastatin 40 mg daily versus placebo | drug-treated hypertensive men aged 40-74 years with total cholesterol 4.5-8.0 mmol/L, triglycerides <4.5 mmol/L, body mass index 25-35 kg/m2, and a sedentary lifestyle | double blind Follow-up duration: 4 year Norway |
| fosinopril versus placebo | |||
| Zannad et al, 2006 | Fosinopril 20 mg/day versus matched placebo | chronic hemodialysis patients. | double blind Follow-up duration: 24 months |
| 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 versus placebo | |||
| EWPHE (subgroup ), 1985 | hydrochlorothiazide + triamterene versus placebo | patients over the age of 60 | double-blind Follow-up duration: 3·1y |
| 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 | |
| intensive versus usual | |||
| ACCORD (blood pressure), 2010 NCT00000620 | intensive blood-pressure control, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 120 mm Hg versus standard blood-pressure control | high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, high HbA1c concentrations (>7.5%), and cardiovascular disease (or >=2 cardiovascular risk factors) | open Follow-up duration: 4.7 y United States, Canada |
| 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 |
| IDNT (irbesartan vs amlodipine), 2001 | Irbesartan 300 mg daily versus amlodipine 10 mg daily | hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes | double blind Follow-up duration: 2.6 years 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 |
| IDNT (irbesartan vs pbo), 2001 | Irbesartan 300 mg daily versus placebo | hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes | double blind Follow-up duration: 2.6 years Worldwide |
| IPDM (150mg), 2001 | irbesartan 150 mg daily versus placebo | hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria | double-blind Follow-up duration: 2 years Worldwide |
| 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 chlorthalidone | |||
| ALLHAT (lisi vs chlor, diabetic subgroup), 2002 | lisinopril 10 to 40 mg/d versus chlorthalidone 12.5 to 25 mg/d | diabetic (subgroup) participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension | double-blind Follow-up duration: 4.9 y |
| 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 |
| LIFE (diabetic subgroup), 2002 | losartan 50mg daily at step 1 versus atenolol 50mg daily at step 1 | patients with diabetes (subgroup) , hypertension, and signs of left-ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiograms | double-blind Follow-up duration: 4.7 years USA, UK, Nordic countries |
| Losartan versus Captopril | |||
| ELITE-II, 2000 | Losartan titrated to 50 mg once daily versus Captopril titrated to 50 mg three times daily | patients aged 60 years or older with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and ejection fraction of 40% or less. Patients | double-blind Follow-up duration: 1.5 y |
| OPTIMAAL, 2001 | losartan (titrated to 50 mg once daily) versus Captopril (titrated to 50 mg three times daily) | patients 50 years of age or older, with confirmed acute myocardial infarction and heart failure during the acute phase or a new Q-wave anterior infarction or reinfarction | NA Follow-up duration: 2.7 y Europe (7 countries) |
| ELITE, 1997 | Losartan titrated to 50 mg once daily for 48 weeks versus Captopril titrated to 50 mg three times daily for 48 weeks | naive patients (aged 65 years or more) with NYHA class II-IV heart failure and ejection fractions of 40% or less | double-blind Follow-up duration: 1 y |
| 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 |
| RENAAL, 2001 | losartan 50 to 100 mg once daily versus placebo | patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy | double-blind Follow-up duration: 3.4 y America, Europe, Asia |
| more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie versus less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | |||
| PAST-BP, 2015 | versus | ||
| Wei, 2013 | BP <=140/90 mm Hg versus BP <=150/90 mm Hg | Chinese hypertensive patients older than 70 years | Follow-up duration: 4 years (mean) China |
| SPS3, 2013 NCT00059306. | less than 130 mm Hg versus 130-149 mm Hg | patients lived in North America, Latin America, and Spain and had recent, MRI-defined symptomatic lacunar infarctions | open-label |
| HOMED-BP, 2012 | tight control (<125/<80 mm Hg (TC)) of HBP versus usual control (125-134/80-84 mm Hg (UC)) | with an untreated systolic/diastolic HBP of 135-179/85-119 mm Hg | Follow-up duration: 5.3 years (median) |
| VANLISH, 2010 | strict blood pressure control (<140 mm Hg) versus moderate blood pressure control (> or =140 mm Hg to <150 mm Hg) | patients aged 70 to 84 years with isolated systolic hypertension (sitting blood pressure 160 to 199 mm Hg) | open-label Follow-up duration: 3.07 years (median) |
| JATOS, 2008 | strict treatment to maintain systolic blood pressure below 140 mmHg versus mild treatment to maintain systolic blood pressure below 160 but at or above 140 mmHg | elderly hypertensive patients with essential hypertension (65-85 years old, with a pretreatment systolic blood pressure of above 160 mmHg) | open-label |
| UKPDS-HDS, 1998 | blood pressure of <150/85 mm Hg (with the use of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor captopril or a beta blocker atenolol as main treatment) versus less tight control aiming at a blood pressure of <180/105 mm Hg | patients with type 2 diabetes | open-label Follow-up duration: 8.4 years UK |
| SPRINT, 2015 NCT01206062 | target of 120 mm Hg versus target of 140 mm Hg | high-risk hypertensive adults 50 years of age and older with one additional cardiovascular risk factor or preexisting kidney disease | open |
| Cardio-Sis, 2009 NCT00421863 | tighter control of systolic BP with a goal of <130 mm Hg versus usual control, with a goal of <140 mm Hg | nondiabetic patients with hypertension and with SBP of 150 mm Hg or higher confirmed at two different times | open Follow-up duration: 2 years Italy |
| AASK, 2002 | arterial pressure goal of 92 mm Hg or lower versus usual mean arterial pressure goal of 102 to 107 mm Hg/pj | African-Americans,with diastolic blood pressure higher than 94mmHg and a glomerular filtration rate between 20 and 65 ml/min per 1.73 m2 | open Follow-up duration: (range 3-6.4y) USA |
| ABCD target (H) , 2000 | intensive treatment with a diastolic blood pressure
goal of 75 mmHg versus moderate treatment with a diastolic blood pressure goal of 80-89 mmHg | diabetes patients with DBP >=90 mmHg | open Follow-up duration: 5 year |
| ABCD target (N) , 2002 | intensive treatment (diastolic blood pressure decrease
of 10 mmHg below baseline DBP) versus moderate treatment (diastolic blood pressure goal of 80-89 mmHg) | diabetes patients with diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 89mmHg | open |
| HOT, 1994 | less or equal than 85 mmHg, or less or equal than 80 mmHg versus less or equal than 90 mmHg | patients with diastolic blood pressure between 100 mmHg and 115 mmHg | open Follow-up duration: 3.8 y 26 countries |
| REIN-2, 2005 | intensified (systolic/diastolic <130/80 mm Hg) blood-pressure control versus conventional (diastolic <90 mm Hg) blood-pressure control | patients with non-diabetic proteinuric nephropathies receiving background treatment with the ACE inhibitor ramipril | open Follow-up duration: 36 months |
| MDRD, 1994 | low target blood pressure (mean arterial pressure < 92 mm Hg) versus usual target blood pressure (mean arterial pressure < 107 mm Hg) | patients with predominantly nondiabetic kidney disease and a glomerular filtration rate of 13 to 55 mL/min per 1.73 m2 | open Follow-up duration: 2.2 y |
| Toto, 1995 | strict blood pressure control (DBP 65 to 80 mm Hg) versus usual blood pressure control (DBP 85 to 95 mm Hg) | non-diabetic patients (age 25 to 73) with long-standing hypertension (DBP > or = 95 mm Hg), chronic renal insufficiency (GFR < or = 70 m/min/1.73 m2) and a normal urine sediment | open |
| ACCORD blood pressure, 2008 NCT00000620 | intensive therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 120 mm Hg versus standard therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 140 mm Hg | patients with a median glycated hemoglobin level of 8.1% at high risk for cardiovascular events | open Follow-up duration: 4.7y USA, Canada |
| 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 |
| nidrendipine versus placebo | |||
| Syst-Eur (subgroup ), 1997 | nitrendipine 10-40 mg daily in first step versus placebo | patients aged 60 years or older | double blind Follow-up duration: 2·9 y |
| 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 coamilozide | |||
| INSIGHT (diabetic subgroup), 2000 | Nifedipine GITS 30 mg daily versus co-amilozide hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg plus amiloride 2.5 mg | diabetic (subgroup) patients aged 55-80 years with hypertension (blood pressure >= 150/95 mm Hg, or >= 160 mmHg systolic) | double-blind Follow-up duration: 4 y Europe, Israel |
| 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 |
| nisoldipine versus enalapril | |||
| ABCD (hypertension), 1998 | nisoldipine (long acting) versus enalapril | patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and hypertension | Double blind Follow-up duration: 5 y USA |
| 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 |
| Syst-Eur (diabetic subgroup), 1999 | Calcium-channel blocker versus placebo | subgroup of diabetic patients, age, >=60 years) with systolic blood pressure of 160 to 219 mm Hg and diastolic pressure below 95 mm Hg | double blind Follow-up duration: 2 years |
| 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 |
| ramipril versus usual care | |||
| Li et al, 2003 | Ramipril 5 mg/day versus Conventional treatment | patients with end-stage renal failure treated with peritoneal dialysis | open Follow-up duration: 12 months |
| Symplicity system versus control | |||
| Symplicity HTN-2, 2010 NCT00888433 | renal denervation with previous treatment versus maintain previous treatment alone | patients with baseline systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or more (¡Ý150 mm Hg for patients with type 2 diabetes), despite taking three or more antihypertensive drugs | open Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| Symplicity system versus sham procedure | |||
| Symplicity HTN-3, 2014 NCT01418261 | catheter-based renal denervation versus sham procedure | patients with resistant hypertension | double-blind Follow-up duration: 6 months |
| 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 Enalapril | |||
| DETAIL, 2004 | Telmisartan 80 mg daily versus Enalapril 20 mg daily | pateintspatients with type 2 diabetes and early nephropathy | double-blind Follow-up duration: 5 y |
| 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 |
| Cice et al, 2006 | Telmisartan 80 mg/day versus matched placebo | ||
| Telmisartan versus Ramipril | |||
| ONTARGET/Tel, 2008 | Telmisartan 80 mg daily versus Ramipril 10 mg daily | patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes | double-blind Follow-up duration: 4.7 y |
| Telmisartan + ramipril versus Ramipril | |||
| ONTARGET/Tel+Ram, 2008 | Telmisartan + ramipril versus Ramipril | patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes | double-blind Follow-up duration: 4.7 y |
| 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 |
| NAGOYA HEART, 2011 NCT00129233 | blood-pressure-lowering therapy based on valsartan; blood-pressure goal of <130/80 mm Hg versus blood-pressure-lowering therapy based on amlodipine; blood-pressure goal of <130/80 mm Hg | patients with hypertension with type 2 diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance | open Follow-up duration: 3.2 y median Japan |
| Valsartan versus Captopril | |||
| VALIANT/Val, 2003 | Valsartan versus Captopril | patients with myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, or both | double-blind Follow-up duration: 2.1 y |
| Valsartan + captopril versus Captopril | |||
| VALIANT/Val+Cap, 2003 | Valsartan + captopril versus Captopril | patients with myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, or both | double-blind Follow-up duration: 2.1 y |
| 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 |
-
About
-
Browse pathology
|
treatment
-
Site map
-
Credits
Made with in Lyon
-
Contact us
-
Privacy policy
-
