, Volume 63, Issue 14, pp 1435–1444 | Cite as

Current Treatment of Patients with Hypertension

Therapeutic Implications of INSIGHT
  • Stefano Taddei
  • Lorenzo Ghiadoni
  • Antonio Salvetti
Current Opinion


When planning treatment for patients with hypertension, current guidelines emphasise the importance of risk stratification, based on blood pressure, the presence of end-organ damage and other cardiovascular risk factors. Because the beneficial effect of antihypertensive therapy seems to be linked to the degree of blood pressure reduction, guidelines recommend reducing blood pressure below 140/90mm Hg, with a lower target in patients who are young or who have diabetes mellitus (with or without nephropathy) or non-diabetic nephropathy.

Blood pressure reduction can be achieved with several classes of drugs, including diuretics, β-blockers, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II antagonists and calcium channel antagonists. Calcium channel antagonists have been shown to reduce the risk of stroke and major cardiovascular events. However, it is still controversial whether different treatment regimens based on different drug classes can offer advantages beyond similar degrees of blood pressure control in preventing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

The International Nifedipine GITS Study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT) was a controlled clinical trial aimed at comparing the efficacy of a long-acting calcium channel antagonist, nifedipine gastrointestinal-transport-system (GITS), versus co-amilozide, a combination of the diuretics hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and amiloride, on morbidity and mortality in high-risk hypertensive patients. Nifedipine GITS and HCTZ/amiloride were equally effective at reducing blood pressure and the risk of primary outcomes (a composite of death from any cardiovascular or cerebrovascular cause, non-fatal stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure). Results from other studies indicate that there may be greater benefits for stroke and smaller benefits for coronary artery disease with calcium channel antagonist-based regimens than with diuretic or β-blocker-based regimens. However, there is at present insufficient evidence to recommend a specific drug choice based on patient risk profile.

Thus, the choice of antihypertensive drug(s) should be according to efficacy and tolerability. In addition to the reductions in cardiovascular risk, two substudies of INSIGHT showed that nifedipine GITS was able to prevent the progression of intima media thickness in the common carotid artery and slow the progression of coronary calcification. The clinical significance of this effect in the prevention of cardiovascular events still remains to be established.



The authors have provided no information on sources of funding or on conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this review.


  1. 1.
    MacMahon S, Peto R, Cutler J, et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 1: prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. Lancet 1990; 335: 765–74Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vasan RS, Larson MG, Leip EP, et al. Impact of high-normal blood pressure on the risk of cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1291–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI). Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 2413–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guidelines Subcommittee. 1999 World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension. J Hypertens 1999; 17: 151–83Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collins R, McMahon S. Blood pressure, antihypertensive drug treatment and the risk of stroke and of coronary artery disease. Br Med Bull 1994; 50: 272–98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood pressure-lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomized trials. Lancet 2000; 356: 1955–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial: HOT Study Group. Lancet 1998; 351: 1755–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension: the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet 1997; 350: 757–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu L, Wang JG, Gong L, et al. Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension: Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China) Collaborative Group. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 1823–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gong L, Zhang W, Zhu Y, et al. Shanghai trial of nifedipine in the elderly (STONE). J Hypertens 1996; 14: 1237–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the Liaison Committee of the World Health Organisation and the International Society of Hypertension. Effects of calcium antagonists on the risks of coronary heart disease, cancer and bleeding. J Hum Hypertens 1997; 11: 331–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A, et al. 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). Lancet 2000; 356: 366–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simon A, Gariepy J, Moyse D, et al. Differential effects of nifedipine and co-amilozide on the progression of early carotid wall changes. Circulation 2001; 103: 2949–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Motro M, Shemesh J. Calcium channel blocker nifedipine slows down progression of coronary calcification in hypertensive patients compared with diuretics. Hypertension 2001; 37: 1410–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haegerty A, Deverly A, Funck-Bretano C, et al. The role of the Critical Event Committee in a major cardiovascular outcome study. Blood Press 2003; 11: 339–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dobson AJ, Evans A, Ferrario M, et al. Changes in estimated coronary risk in the 1980s: data from 38 populations in the WHO MONICA Project. World Health Organization. Monitoring trends and determinants in cardiovascular diseases. Ann Med 1998; 30: 199–205Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuulasmaa K, Tunstall-Pedoe H, Dobson A, et al. Estimation of contribution of changes in classic risk factors to trends in coronary-event rates across the WHO MONICA Project populations. Lancet 2000; 355: 675–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Ekbom T, et al. Randomised trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and morbidity the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2 study. Lancet 1999; 354: 1751–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hansson L, Hedner T, Lund-Johansen P, et al. Randomised trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and beta-blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) study. Lancet 2000; 356: 359–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998; 317: 703–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Intervention Cooperative Study in Elderly Hypertensives Study Group. Randomized double-blind comparison of a calcium antagonist and a diuretic in elderly hypertensives. Hypertension 1999; 34: 1129–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zanchetti A, Rosei EA, Dal Palu C, et al. The Verapamil in Hypertension and Atherosclerosis Study (VHAS): results of long-term randomized treatment with either verapamil or chlorthalidone on carotid intima-media thickness. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 1667–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Opie LH, Schall R. Evidence-based evaluation of calcium channel blockers for hypertension: equality of mortality and cardiovascular risk relative to conventional therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39: 315–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Borhani NO, Mercuri M, Borhani PA, et al. Final outcome results of the Multicenter Isradipine Diuretic Atherosclerosis Study (MIDAS): a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1996; 276: 785–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pahor M, Psaty BM, Alderman MH, et al. Health outcome associated with calcium antagonists compared with other firstline antihypertensive therapies: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Lancet 2000; 356: 1949–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Opie LH. Calcium channel blockers in hypertension: reappraisal after new trials and major meta-analyses. Am J Hypertens 2001; 14: 1074–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pessina AC, Boari L, De Dominicis E, et al. Efficacy, tolerability and influence on quality of life of nifedipine GITS versus amlodipine in elderly patients with mild-moderate hypertension. Blood Press 2001; 10: 176–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hodis HN, Mack WJ, LaBree L, et al. The role of carotid arterial intima-media thickness in predicting clinical coronary events. Ann Intern Med 1998; 128: 262–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zanchetti A, Bond MG, Hennig M, et al. Risk factors associated with alterations in carotid intima-media thickness in hypertension: baseline data from the European Lacidipine Study onAtherosclerosis. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 949–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chobanian AV. 1989 Corcoran lecture: adaptive and maladaptive responses of the arterial wall to hypertension. Hypertension 1990; 15: 666–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pitt B, Byington RP, Furberg CD, et al. Effect of amlodipine on the progression of atherosclerosis and the occurrence of clinical events: PREVENT Investigators. Circulation 2000; 102: 1503–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zanchetti A, Bond G, Henning M, et al. Calcium antagonist lacidipine slows down progression of asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis: principal results of the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA), a randomized, double blind, long-term trial. Circulation 2002; 106: r47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fitzpatrick LA, Severson A, Edwards WD, et al. Diffuse calcification in human coronary arteries: association of osteopontin with atherosclerosis. J Clin Invest 1994; 94: 1597–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Canfield AE, Farrington C, Dziobon MD, et al. The involvement of matrix glycoproteins in vascular calcification and fibrosis: an immunohistochemical study. J Pathol 2002; 196: 228–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lichtlen PR, Hugenholtz PG, Rafflenbeul W, et al. Retardation of angiographic progression of coronary artery disease by nifedipine: results of the International Nifedipine Trial on ntiatherosclerotic Therapy (INTACT). INTACT Group Investigators. Lancet 1990; 335: 1109–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Waters D, Lesperance J, Francetich M, et al. A controlled clinical trial to assess the effect of a calcium channel blocker on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. Circulation 1990; 82: 1940–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Taddei S, Virdis A, Ghiadoni L, et al. Effects of antihypertensive drugs on endothelial dysfunction: clinical implications. Drugs 2002; 62: 265–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Taddei S, Virdis A, Ghiadoni L, et al. Restoration of nitric oxide availability after calcium antagonist treatment in essential hypertension. Hypertension 2001; 37: 943–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    The ENCORE investigators. Effect of nifedipine and cerivastatin on coronary endothelial function in patients with coronary artery disease: the ENCORE I study. Circulation 2003; 107: 422–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kozakova M, Buralli S, Palombo C, et al. Surrogate end points of antihypertensive treatment: left ventricular hypertrophy and structural alteration of carotid arteries. Heart Drugs 2001; 1: 89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shemesh J, Stroh CI, Tenenbaum A, et al. Comparison of coronary calcium in stable angina pectoris and in first acute myocardial infarction utilizing double helical computerized tomography. Am J Cardiol 1998; 81: 271–5LPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lubsen J, Poole-Wilson PA, Pocock SJ, et al. Design and current status of ACTION: a coronary disease trial investigating outcome with Nifedipine GITS. Gastro-Intestinal Therapeutic System. Eur Heart J 1998; 19 Suppl. I: 120–32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Taddei
    • 1
  • Lorenzo Ghiadoni
    • 1
  • Antonio Salvetti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations