Clinical study
Application of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in differentiating between antihypertensive agents

https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(93)90181-NGet rights and content

Abstract

Purpose: This multicenter, double-blind, parallel group study assessed the usefulness of the ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) technique in differentiating between the oncedaily administration of the β blockers bisoprolol (10 to 20 mg) and atenolol (50 to 100 mg) in terms of efficacy and duration of action.

Patients and methods: The study population consisted of 659 patients with essential hypertension and an average office diastolic blood pressure (BP) between 95 and 115 mm Hg after 4 weeks of placebo treatment. Office BPs were recorded at the end of the 24-hour dosing interval (trough). ABPM was performed in 11 of the 28 institutions participating in this study in a total of 203 patients. These procedures were performed at the end of the placebo phase and again after 8 weeks of active treatment.

Results: With the use of conventionally measured office BPs, the two drugs significantly (p < 0.001) decreased trough systolic and diastolic BPs to a similar extent. By 24-hour monitoring, bisoprolol demonstrated a 33% greater reduction in whole-day average diastolic BP than did atenolol (11.6 ± 0.7 mm Hg versus 8.7 ± 0.8 mm Hg, p < 0.01). Significant treatment differences in systolic (p < 0.05) and diastolic (p < 0.01) BPs were also noted for bisoprolol compared with atenolol during the final 4 hours of the dosing interval (−13.2 ± 1.5/−10.9 ± 1.0 mm Hg versus −8.9 ± 1.6/−7.3 ± 1.1 mm Hg, respectively), and over the time period 6:00 AM to noon (−14.2 ± 1.3/−11.5 ± 0.9 mm Hg versus −9.9 ± 1.4/−7.7 ± 0.9 mm Hg).

Conclusion: Whereas conventional BP measurements did not detect differences in the antihypertensive effects of the β blockers bisoprolol and atenolol, ABPM revealed significant treatment differences in both the efficacy and duration of action of these two agents. These findings indicate the power of this technique to discriminate potentially important differences between apparently similar antihypertensive drugs.

References (28)

  • MA Weber et al.

    Characterization of antihypertensive therapy by whole-day blood pressure monitoring

    JAMA

    (1988)
  • DG Cheung et al.

    Assessing duration of antihypertensive effects with whole-day blood pressure monitoring

    Arch Intern Med

    (1989)
  • JR Marler et al.

    Morning increase in onset of ischemic stroke

    Stroke

    (1989)
  • JE Muller et al.

    Circadian variation in the frequency of onset of acute myocardial infarction

    N Engl J Med

    (1985)
  • Cited by (95)

    • Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Clinical Hypertension Management

      2023, Hypertension: A Companion to Braunwald's Heart Disease
    • Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Clinical Hypertension Management

      2018, Hypertension: A Companion to Braunwald's Heart Disease
    • Kidney function and population-based outcomes of initiating oral atenolol versus metoprolol tartrate in older adults

      2014, American Journal of Kidney Diseases
      Citation Excerpt :

      Comparing once-daily atenolol to an extended-release preparation of once-daily metoprolol (eg, metoprolol succinate) may have given a different result, but could not be studied in our region because metoprolol succinate is not an approved drug on our provincial formulary. Dosing atenolol twice daily also is possible, which may improve blood pressure control compared to once-daily dosing provided there is good adherence.42 Third, metoprolol tartrate shows higher first-pass metabolism effects than atenolol, which could result in less of the drug reaching the systemic circulation.

    • Contemporary use of β-blockers: Clinical relevance of subclassification

      2014, Canadian Journal of Cardiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      In fact, nonselective agents, by their blocking effect on β-2 vasodilatory receptors, might be less effective than cardioselective agents, those agents demonstrating less systolic BP variability compared with nonselective agents.14 Bisoprolol 10 to 20 mg once daily has indeed been shown to lower BP more effectively than atenolol 50 to 100 mg once daily, a moderately cardioselective β-blocker.43 The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT)44 examined 19,257 hypertensive patients with at least 3 other risk factors and treated with either an amlodipine-based treatment or an atenolol-based treatment.

    • Biowaiver monograph for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms: Bisoprolol fumarate

      2014, Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
      Citation Excerpt :

      Bisopolol is indicated in the treatment of stable chronic heart failure with reduced systolic ventricular function in addition to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, diuretics and optionally, cardiac glycosides.5,6 It is also indicated in the suppression of atrial fibrillation5,7,8 and has antihypertensive efficacy.9-12 Preclinical studies including conventional safety pharmacology, repeated dose toxicity, genotoxicity, or carcinogenicity have not revealed any special hazard to humans.

    • Differences in mean and variability of heart rate and ambulatory rate-pressure product when valsartan or carvedilol is added to lisinopril

      2012, Journal of the American Society of Hypertension
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, the interpretation that increased blood pressure variability with atenolol accounts for inferior CVD outcomes hinges on a major flaw in the study design and in routine clinical practice: that atenolol can be reliably administered once daily. This assertion is clearly not true because atenolol has an effective pharmacodynamic half-life that is substantially less than 24 hours.29 Thus, if dosed in the morning, atenolol cannot be optimally effective at reducing the surge in BP and the accompanying increases in event rates for stroke30 and CVD31 that occur the next day in the early morning hours.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This work was supported by a grant from Lederle Laboratories, Pearl River, New York. Presented in part at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Orlando, Florida, March 18, 1992.

    View full text