Current assessment of the stepped-care treatment of mild hypertension: diuretics, beta-blockers, vasodilators versus Clonidine

  • M. P. Sambhi


The fairly conclusive demonstration by the Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents (1967) of the strikingly favourable effect of drug treatment on morbidity associated with untreated moderate-to-severe hypertension generated global interest. It suggested that physicians should be made more aware of effective regimens for antihypertensive therapy. A subsequent analysis of the results of the VA trial (Walker et al. 1982) indicated that the benefits of drug treatment, in terms of reducing mortality and morbidity, were, in gross terms, proportional to the therapeutic reduction of blood pressure.


Thiazide Diuretic Mild Hypertension Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Intrinsic Sympathomimetic Activity Achieve Goal Blood Pressure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berglund G, Andersson O (1981) Beta-blockers or diuretics in hypertension? A six year follow-up of blood pressure and metabolic side-effects. Lancet 1:744–747.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Helgeland A (1980) Treatment of mild hypertension: a five-year controlled drug trial: the Oslo study. Am J Med 69:725–732.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kannel WB (1978) Hypertension, blood lipids and cigarette smoking as co-risk factors for coronary heart disease in mild hypertension: to treat or not to treat. In: Perry HM, Smith WM (eds) NY Acad Sci 304:128–139.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lund-Johansen P (1974) Hemodynamic changes at rest and during exercise in long-term Clonidine therapy of essential hypertension. Acta Med Scand 195:111–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lund-Johansen P (1979 a) Spontaneous changes in central hemodynamics in essential hypertension — a ten-year follow-up study. In Onesti G, Klimt CR (eds) Hypertension — determinants, complications and intervention. Grune & Stratton, New York, 201–209.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lund-Johansen P (1979 b) Hemodynamic consequences of long-term beta-blocker therapy: a 5-year follow-up study of atenolol. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1:487–495.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    MRC (1981) Report of Medical Research Council working party on mild to moderate hypertension: adverse reactions to bendrofluazide and propranolol for the treatment of mild hypertension. Lancet 11:539–542.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group (1982) Multiple risk intervention trial. JAMA 248:1465–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paul O (1971) Risks of mild hypertension: a ten-year report. Br Heart J (Suppl) 33:116–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Report of the Joint National Committee on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure (1980) Arch Intern Med 140:1280–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sambhi MP (1981) The effectiveness of diuretics in hypertension: a critical evaluation. In: Weber MA (ed), Treatment strategies in hypertension. Symposia Specialists, Miami 97–109.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sambhi MP (1982) Individualized drug therapy: a rational alternative to the stepped-care approach in treatment of mild hypertension. International Symposium on Mild Hypertension, Mexico City. In press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sambhi MP (1983 a) Clonidine monotherapy in mild hypertension. Chest (Suppl 2) 83:427–430.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sambhi MP (1983 b) Clonidin-monotherapie bei leichter und mittelschwerer hypertonic In: Hayduk K (Hrsg), Bock KD Zentrale Blutdruckregulation durch α2-Rezoptorenstimulation. Steinkopff Verlag Darmstadt, Düsseldorf, Essen: 132–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sambhi MP, Thananopavarn C, Eggena P, Berrett JD, to be published.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Society of Actuaries (1959) Build and blood pressure study, Chicago, 1.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taguchi J, Freis ED (1974) Partial reduction of blood pressure and prevention of complications in hypertension. Engl J Med 291:329–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thannopavarn C, Golub MS, Eggena P, Barrett JD, Sambhi MP (1982) Clonidine, a centrally acting sympathetic inhibitor, as monotherapy for mild to moderate hypertension. Am J Cardiol 49:153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thananopavarn C, Sambhi MP, Golub MS, Eggena P, Barrett JD (March, in press) Saluretic and diuretic effects of nitrendipine during antihypertensive monotherapy. Abstract: Amer Soc Clinic Pharmacol Therap.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thananopavarn C, Golub MS, Sambhi MP (1983) Clonidine in the elderly hypertensive. Monotherapy and therapy with a diuretic. Chest 83 (Suppl):410–411.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Brummelen P (1983) The relevance of intrinsic sympathomimetic activity for β-blockerinduced changes in plasma lipids. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 5 (Suppl 1):S51–S55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Veterans Administration Cooperaive Study Group on antihypertensive agents (1967) Effects of treatment on morbidity in hypertension: results in patients with diastolic blood pressures averaging 115 through 129 mm Hg. JAMA 202:116–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walker BR, Hare LE, Dwitch MW (1982) Comparative antihypertensive effects of guanabenz and Clonidine. J Int Med Res 10:6–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. Dietrich Steinkopff Verlag, GmbH & Co. KG, Darmstadt 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. P. Sambhi
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Hypertension, Department of medicine, San Fernando Valley Medical CenterUCLASepulvedaUSA

Personalised recommendations