Abstract
In 34 out-patients with essential hypertension, the antihypertensive effect and the trough-to-peak ratios of once-daily enalapril or lisinopril were compared by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) according to a crossover design. The drug dose was titrated and a thiazide diuretic was added if necessary to attain a target office BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg. Both drugs significantly lowered BP but the effect of lisinopril was greater (P < 0.009): day- and night-time mean bp fell from 152/98 and 135/84 mm hg, respectively to 133/85 and 118/74 mm hg with enalapril and to 129/83 and 116/70 mm hg with lisinopril. bp goal was reached with an average dose of 18 mg enalapril with 8 mg hydrochlorothiazide and with 17 mg lisinopril combined with 6 mg diuretic. trough:peak ratio values, which were calculated after fourier analysis of abpm data in individual patients, were independent of drug dose. the combination with the diuretic resulted in slightly higher trough:peak ratios than with ace inhibitor monotherapy, but the difference was not significant. the median trough:peak ratio in patients when using enalapril-based therapy was 0.48 and, when taking lisinopril-based treatment, it was 0.65 (n = 28, P < 0.005). a significant correlation was found between trough:peak ratio and changes in daytime mean arterial pressure (map; spearman r = 0.43) and night-time MAP (r = 0.66). When 24-h ABPM was performed starting 24 h after last drug intake, both ACE inhibitors still had a significant antihypertensive effect (P < 0.001), which was similar for both drugs. eleven patients reported minor side effects. four patients stopped ace-inhibitor treatment because of cough. the data show that lisinopril has a longer duration of action than enalapril.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Diamant, M., Vincent, H. Lisinopril versus enalapril: evaluation of trough:peak ratio by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hum Hypertens 13, 405–412 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1000821
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1000821
- Springer Nature Limited