Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, nitrendipine, and enalapril in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. DESIGN: Randomised multicentre trial over 48 weeks with double blind comparison of treatments. SETTING: 48 centres in four countries. PATIENTS: 868 patients with essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95-120 mm Hg) INTERVENTIONS: Initial treatment (step 1) consisted of 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide (n = 215), 25 mg atenolol (n = 215), 10 mg nitrendipine (n = 218), or 5 mg enalapril (n = 220) once daily. If diastolic blood pressure was not reduced to < 90 mm Hg within four weeks, doses were increased to 25 mg, 50 mg, 20 mg, 10 mg, respectively, once daily (step 2) and after two more weeks to twice daily (step 3). The eight week titration phase was followed by an additional 40 weeks for patients who had reached the target diastolic pressure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood pressure by means of an automatic device with repeated measurements. RESULTS: After eight weeks the response rate for atenolol (63.7%) was significantly higher than for enalapril (50.0%), hydrochlorothiazide (44.7%), or nitrendipine (44.5%). After one year atenolol was still more effective (48.0%) than hydrochlorothiazide (35.4%) and nitrendipine (32.9%), but not significantly better than enalapril (42.7%). The treatment related dropout rate was higher (P < 0.001) in the nitrendipine group (n = 28). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of superiority for antihypertensive effectiveness or tolerability of the "new" classes of antihypertensives (calcium channel blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors). As these drugs are now widely used as treatment of first choice, our results further emphasise the need for studies confirming that they also reduce morbidity and mortality, as has been shown for diuretics and beta blockers.