Study of the pharmacokinetic interaction between simvastatin and prescription omega-3-acid ethyl esters

The coadministration of prescription omega-3-acid ethyl esters (P-OM3) with a statin may present a treatment option for patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. This open-label, randomized, 2-way crossover, drug-drug interaction study evaluated the impact of P-OM3 capsules on plasma simvastatin pharmacokinetics in 24 healthy volunteers. Under fasted conditions, 80 mg simvastatin was administered with or without 4 g P-OM3 for two 14-day periods. After 14 days of dosing to achieve steady state, no significant differences were found in either the extent (AUC(tau)) or rate (Cmax) of exposure to simvastatin or its major beta-hydroxy metabolite after coadministration of P-OM3 with simvastatin compared with administration of simvastatin alone. At steady state, the coadministration of P-OM3 capsules did not appear to affect the pharmacokinetics of simvastatin tablets. The combination of P-OM3 capsules and simvastatin appeared to be well tolerated.

Pharmacotherapy of dyslipidemia

Reducing elevated levels of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) significantly reduces the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) events and mortality in hypercholesterolemic patients. CHD risk reduction is proportional to LDL-C reduction. Despite this knowledge, many physicians are not applying existing treatment guidelines to the extent required to achieve target LDL-C levels. Target LDL-C levels are not achievable for most patients without drug therapy. Based on their lipid-lowering abilities, safety, and tolerability profiles, the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are the first-line pharmacotherapeutic agents for hypercholesterolemia. The ability of statins to reduce CHD events and total mortality in primary- and secondary-prevention patients also supports this assertion. For combined dyslipidemia, statin monotherapy is a reasonable initial approach in patients with moderate hypertriglyceridemia because statins effectively lower both LDL-C and triglycerides. Fibrates or niacin are effective therapies for severe hypertriglyceridemia. Resins are moderately effective in isolated hypercholesterolemia, and are a useful alternative to statins in pregnant women or patients with liver disease. For severe hyperlipidemia that does not respond to single drug therapy, combination drug therapy may be required. This article reviews the various manifestations of dyslipidemia and assesses the most efficacious treatments.

Lipid management: tools for getting to the goal

The treatment of hypercholesterolemia in the United States begins with the recognition of elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as the primary target. An optimal LDL-C level has been defined as < 100 mg/dL. The first step in lowering LDL-C continues to be lifestyle modification, which includes a restriction of saturated fat and cholesterol, increased physical activity, and weight loss, if applicable. Approximately half of all patients with elevated LDL-C levels will ultimately need treatment with a lipid-lowering drug to achieve treatment goals. The preferred drug for first-line treatment in most patients is a statin; a bile acid resin or niacin can be used in patients who cannot tolerate statins or who are not candidates for stain therapy. Combination therapy is an option, with several combinations showing efficacy in lowering LDL-C (statin plus bile acid resin, niacin plus bile acid resin) and in lowering both LDL-C and triglycerides (statin plus fibrate, statin plus niacin, bile acid resin plus niacin). Successful lipid management includes treating to reach the LDL-C goal level, treating to reach the non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal level if applicable, and managing other risk factors for coronary heart disease.

Effect of niacin and atorvastatin on lipoprotein subclasses in patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia

This study was conducted to determine the efficacy of atorvastatin and niacin on lipoprotein subfractions in patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia. This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-design study of patients with total cholesterol >200 mg/dl, triglycerides between 200 and 800 mg/dl, and apolipoprotein B >110 mg/dl. Patients were randomly assigned to atorvastatin 10 mg or immediate release niacin 3,000 mg daily for 12 weeks following a low-fat diet stabilization period. Lipoprotein subclasses were measured by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Atorvastatin and niacin both significantly reduced the concentrations of very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) particles (-31% and -29%, respectively) and small low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles (-44% and -35%, respectively). Niacin increased the concentration of large LDL (+75%). Atrovastatin reduced the number of LDL particles more than niacin (31% vs 14%). In patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia, both drugs had important effects on lipoprotein subfractions, which contributed to a reduction in coronary heart disease risk. The drugs equally reduced VLDL subclass levels. Niacin shifted the LDL subclass distribution toward the larger particles, more effectively converted patients from LDL phenotype B to phenotype A, and increased levels of the larger and perhaps more cardioprotective high-density lipoprotein particles. In contrast, atorvastatin preferentially lowered the concentration of small LDL particles without increasing levels of large LDL, and more effectively, reduced LDL particle numbers. Atorvastatin had a preferred LDL effect, whereas niacin had a preferred high-density lipoprotein effect.

New guidelines for managing hypercholesterolemia

OBJECTIVE

To summarize for pharmacists the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III), recently issued guidelines for managing hypercholesterolemia, from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP).

DATA SOURCES

Executive summary of ATP III, and other pertinent literature as determined by the author.

STUDY SELECTION

Not applicable.

DATA EXTRACTION

By the author.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Like previous guidelines issued by NCEP, ATP III focuses on lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as a primary focus and using exercise, diet, and pharmacotherapy as a primary means of lowering patients' coronary heart disease (CHD) risks. The new guidelines recognize LDL-C levels of less than 100 mg/dL as optimal for all patients, and increase attention on high triglyceride levels (above 200 mg/dL). ATP III places more emphasis on identifying patients at risk for CHD and CHD events (e.g., myocardial infarctions, revascularization procedures). To apply the recommendations of ATP III in pharmaceutical care practice, pharmacists should follow a six-step process: (1) Assess the patient's lipid profile (full panel, not just total cholesterol); (2) assess and categorize the patient's CHD risk (using a point system reflecting the levels of risk inherent in certain factors); (3) establish treatment goals and approaches (the greater the risk, the more aggressive the management); (4) initiate therapeutic lifestyle changes (including new recommendations for low intake of saturated fats and dietary cholesterol); (5) initiate LDL-C lowering drug therapy (often with combination therapy); and (6) consider other lipid factors (particularly hypertriglyceridemia and the metabolic syndrome).

CONCLUSION

Most patients who begin lipid-lowering therapy stop it within 1 year, and only about one-third of patients reach treatment goals. The release of the ATP III guidelines provides pharmacists a great opportunity to enhance pharmaceutical care services directed specifically at patients with hyperlipidemia.

Improving cholesterol control in managed care populations

Cholesterol management has clearly emerged as a top priority for prevention-oriented management of coronary artery disease, and National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines provide the best treatment targets for these efforts. However, even in the highest risk patients, where managed care organizations naturally tend to focus their prevention budgets, the percentage of patients attaining NCEP targets is dismal. To improve success rates in patients requiring pharmacologic therapy, more effective use of new and existing drug therapies may be required. This article provides an update on current options for lipid-modifying drug therapy and offers examples of combination regimens that may assist practitioners in attaining target lipid levels.

Extended-Release Niacin vs Gemfibrozil for the Treatment of Low Levels of High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

OBJECTIVE

To provide a direct comparison of agents that raise plasma levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) to help devise strategies for coronary risk reduction.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, we compared the effects of extended-release niacin (Niaspan), at doses increased sequentially from 1000 to 2000 mg at bedtime, with those of gemfibrozil, 600 mg given twice daily, in raising low levels of HDL-C. Enrollment criteria included an HDL-C level of 1.03 mmol/L or less (< or =40 mg/dL), a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of 4.14 mmol/L or less (< or =160 mg/dL) or less than 3.36 mmol/L (<130 mg/dL) with atherosclerotic disease, and a triglyceride level of 4.52 mmol/L or less (< or =400 mg/dL).

RESULTS

Among 173 patients, 72 (82%) of the 88 assigned to Niaspan treatment and 68 (80%) of the 85 assigned to gemfibrozil treatment completed the study. Niaspan, at 1500 and 2000 mg, vs gemfibrozil raised the HDL-C level more (21% and 26%, respectively, vs 13%), raised the apolipoprotein A-I level more (9% and 11% vs 4%), reduced the total cholesterol-HDL-C ratio more (-17% and -22% vs -12%), reduced the lipoprotein(a) level (-7% and -20% vs no change), and had no adverse effect on the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (2% and 0% change vs a 9% increase). Significance levels for comparisons between medications ranged from P<.001 to P<.02. Gemfibrozil reduced the triglyceride level more than Niaspan (P<.001 to P = .06, -40% for gemfibrozil vs -16% to -29% for Niaspan, 1000 to 2000 mg). Effects on plasma fibrinogen levels were significantly favorable for Niaspan compared with gemfibrozil (P<.02), as gemfibrozil increased the fibrinogen level (from 5% to 9%) and Niaspan tended to decrease the fibrinogen level (from -1% to -6%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with a low baseline HDL-C level, Niaspan at its higher doses provided up to 2-fold greater HDL-C increases, decreases in lipoprotein(a), improvements in lipoprotein cholesterol ratios, and lower fibrinogen levels compared with gemfibrozil. Gemfibrozil gave a greater triglyceride reduction but also increased the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, which did not occur with Niaspan.

Pharmaceutical care services and results in project ImPACT: hyperlipidemia

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate that pharmacists, working collaboratively with patients and physicians and having immediate access to objective point-of-care patient data, promote patient persistence and compliance with prescribed dyslipidemic therapy that enables patients to achieve their National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) goals.

DESIGN

Observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

26 community-based ambulatory care pharmacies: independent, chain-professional, chain-grocery store, home health/home infusion, clinic, health maintenance organization/managed care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rates of patient persistence and compliance with medication therapy and achievement of target therapeutic goals.

RESULTS

In a population of 397 patients over an average period of 24.6 months, observed rates for persistence and compliance with medication therapy were 93.6% and 90.1%, respectively, and 62.5% of patients had reached and were maintained at their NCEP lipid goal at the end of the project.

CONCLUSION

Working collaboratively with patients, physicians, and other health care providers, pharmacists who have ready access to objective clinical data, and who have the necessary knowledge, skills, and resources, can provide an advanced level of care that results in successful management of dyslipidemia.

A randomized trial of ecadotril versus placebo in patients with mild to moderate heart failure: the U.S. ecadotril pilot safety study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the short-term safety and tolerability of the addition of ecadotril to conventional therapy in patients with mild to moderate heart failure.

METHODS

Fifty ambulatory patients, 18 to 75 years of age, with mild to moderate heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction </=35%, taking stable doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, diuretics, and optionally digoxin were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-escalation study of ecadotril 50 to 400 mg twice daily versus conventional therapy alone.

RESULTS

No increases in deaths, serious adverse events, or dropouts from adverse events were observed for the ecadotril group compared with placebo. The serum measures of neurohormonal activation were highly variable. Changes in signs and symptoms of heart failure, New York Heart Association class, and patient self-assessment of symptoms were not observed with ecadotril therapy; however, the study was not designed to detect differences in these parameters.

CONCLUSION

In this small pilot study, ecadotril in doses of 50 to 400 mg twice daily was generally well-tolerated and without severe short-term adverse effects in patients with mild to moderate heart failure. Evaluation of the clinical efficacy and long-term safety of ecadotril and other neutral endopeptidase inhibitors in patients with heart failure requires further study.

Pharmacotherapy of dyslipidemia in postmenopausal women: weighing the evidence

In the United States, coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in women. The incidence of CHD rises dramatically in women following menopause, which can be partially attributed to a more atherogenic lipoprotein profile. For years, observational and epidemiological data have suggested that estrogen and progesterone therapy reduced CHD end points. However, the first prospective trial that evaluated hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for secondary CHD prevention demonstrated no positive cardiovascular benefit of HRT compared with placebo. In interventional studies, the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA)reductase inhibitors significantly reduced CHD outcomes in postmenopausal women, and these agents have emerged as the drugs of choice for primary and secondary CHD prevention. The selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) may have a role in CHD prevention, but long-term clinical trials evaluating end points are needed. An evidence-based approach is necessary when deciding the appropriate pharmacotherapy of dyslipidemia in postmenopausal women.

Patient education and compliance: how to make it cost-effective

The current level of noncompliance with prescription medications exerts a tremendous burden on the healthcare system in terms of both cost and poor health. The process of developing a program to improve compliance for lipid therapy is twofold. First, patients must be met at their specific level of need. This involves enabling, reinforcing, prompting, and problem solving. Second, the delivery of treatment must be addressed. Large centers and groups should refer lipid patients to a central team of professionals specializing in lipid therapy; or groups of physicians should contract extra patient support out to other groups, such as pharmacies. The implementation of a compliance program will not be immediately cost-effective but will have the long-term benefit of reduced costs through improved health.

The cost of reaching National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) goals in hypercholesterolaemic patients. A comparison of atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin and fluvastatin

OBJECTIVE

Recognising the importance of treating hyperlipidaemia, the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) has established widely accepted treatment goals for low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Medications used most commonly to achieve these LDL-C goals are HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. The relative resource utilisation and cost associated with the use of reductase inhibitors of different LDL-C lowering efficacy are unknown, but are major health and economic concerns. The objective of this study was to determine the mean total cost of care to reach NCEP goals with various reductase inhibitors.

DESIGN

In a randomised, 54-week, 30-centre controlled trial we compared resources used and costs associated with treating patients to achieve NCEP goals using 4 reductase inhibitors: atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin and fluvastatin.

PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS

The trial studied 662 patients; 318 had known atherosclerotic disease.

INTERVENTIONS

Reductase inhibitor therapy was initiated at recommended starting doses and increased according to NCEP guidelines and package insert information. For patients who did not reach the goal at the highest recommended dose of each reductase inhibitor, the resin colestipol was added.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

Patients treated with atorvastatin, compared-with other reductase inhibitors, were more likely to reach NCEP goals during treatment (p < 0.05), required fewer office visits (p < 0.001) and less adjuvant colestipol therapy (p = 0.001). Consequently, the mean total cost of care (1996 values) to reach NCEP goals was lower with atorvastatin [$US1064; 95% confidence interval (CI): $US953 to $US1176] compared with simvastatin ($US1471, 95% CI: $US1304 to $US1648), lovastatin ($US1972; 95% CI: $US1758 to $US2186) and fluvastatin ($US1542; 95% CI: $US1384 to $US1710). Results were similar for patients with or without known atherosclerotic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients requiring drug therapy for hypercholesterolaemia, NCEP LDL-C goals are achieved significantly more often using fewer resources with atorvastatin compared with simvastatin, lovastatin or fluvastatin.

A randomized trial of the effects of atorvastatin and niacin in patients with combined hyperlipidemia or isolated hypertriglyceridemia. Collaborative Atorvastatin Study Group

BACKGROUND

To assess the lipid-lowering effects and safety of atorvastatin and niacin in patients with combined hyperlipidemia or isolated hypertriglyceridemia.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, open-label, parallel-design, active-controlled, study in eight centers in the United States. We enrolled 108 patients with total cholesterol (TC) of > or =200 mg/dL, serum triglycerides (TG) > or =200 and < or =800 mg/dL, and apolipoprotein B (apo B) > or =110 mg/dL. Patients were randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 10 mg once daily (n=55) or immediate-release niacin 1 g three times daily for 12 weeks (n=53). Patients were stratified based on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C): Patients with LDL-C > or =135 mg/dL were considered to have combined hyperlipidemia and patients with LDL-C <135 mg/dL were considered to have isolated hypertriglyceridemia. The primary outcome measure was percent change from baseline in LDL-C. Other lipid levels were evaluated as secondary parameters.

RESULTS

Atorvastatin reduced LDL-C 30% and TC 26% from baseline, and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) 4%. Total TG were reduced 17%. Niacin reduced LDL-C 2%, TC 7%, increased HDL-C 25%, and reduced total TG 29% from baseline. There was a significant difference in LDL-C reduction, the primary efficacy parameter, between the two treatment groups (P <0.05, favoring atorvastatin), as well as a significant difference in the improvement in HDL-C (P <0.05, favoring niacin). The effect of atorvastatin was relatively consistent between patients with combined hyperlipidemia and isolated hypertriglyceridemia, whereas there was more variability between these strata in the niacin treatment group. Atorvastatin was better tolerated than niacin.

CONCLUSION

Atorvastatin may allow patients with combined hyperlipidemia to be treated with monotherapy and offers an efficacious and well-tolerated alternative to niacin for the treatment of patients with isolated hypertriglyceridemia.

Economic benefits of aggressive lipid lowering: a managed care perspective

Coronary heart disease (CHD) has high prevalence in the United States and is associated with significant mortality as well as costs to society. Hyperlipidemia is a major and common modifiable risk factor for CHD. In clinical trials, cholesterol-lowering strategies have a dramatic impact on CHD risk, cardiovascular events, and mortality. Cost-effectiveness data have established that clinical and economic benefits are gained by instituting early and aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. We present new evidence for the clinical benefits and cost effectiveness of aggressive lipid-lowering therapy as primary or secondary prevention of CHD and describe strategies that managed care organizations can take to benefit from a lipid management program.

The cost of treating dyslipidaemia using National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a major cause of death in industrialised countries and places a large burden on society in terms of healthcare resources and lost productivity. US National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines recommend aggressive lipid-modifying therapy for individuals at highest risk for CHD. It has been estimated that more than 50 million individuals in the US (more than one-third of the total population) are candidates for some form of dietary and/or pharmacological intervention to modify their lipid profiles. Most individuals who receive lipid-lowering drug therapy do not meet target goals set by the NCEP; thus, there is a large potential for increased use of drug therapy. Pharmacoeconomic analyses applying NCEP guidelines are sparse; however, available data (using direct costs) suggest that secondary prevention is more cost effective than primary prevention, but that costs associated with primary prevention are generally in line with those of accepted medical interventions. Cost-effectiveness ratios for secondary prevention improved when indirect costs were assessed in one study. A recent randomised prospective 54-week comparative study of statins in 662 patients with hypercholesterolaemia concurrently measured medical outcomes and economic data. Atorvastatin-treated patients were significantly more likely to achieve NCEP goals (overall and at the initial dosage), and to achieve these goals more quickly than patients treated with fluvastatin, lovastatin and simvastatin. The mean cost to reach NCEP goals was consequently lowest for atorvastatin. Results from pharmacoeconomic studies of primary and secondary prevention are therefore in support of NCEP treatment guidelines for hypercholesterolaemia.

Analytic and clinical performance of two compact cholesterol-testing devices

Several relatively inexpensive compact analyzers for measuring cholesterol are available for use outside of the clinical laboratory. We evaluated the analytic and clinical performance of total cholesterol assayed with the AccuMeter (ChemTrak) and the LDX (Cholestech). Accuracy of both devices was evaluated by collecting capillary and venous whole blood from 100 subjects and assaying for total cholesterol. Results were compared with the Centers for Disease Control standardized reference laboratory method. Mean percent bias, mean absolute percent bias, and percentage of subjects with total error above +/- 8.9% were calculated and results were compared with recommendations from National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) for total cholesterol measurements. Precision was evaluated by assay of three pooled serum samples with both devices in duplicate in two runs/day for 20 days. The CV for each serum pool for each device was calculated and compared with NCEP recommendations for precision for total cholesterol measurements. Results with the two devices were compared. The total cholesterol mean percent bias for capillary samples was 2.1% for the LDX and -1.0% for the AccuMeter (p<0.01), and for venous samples 1.6 and -2.0%, respectively (p<0.001). The mean absolute percent bias for capillary samples was 5.4 and 5.2%, respectively (p=0.29), and for venous samples was 5.0 and 5.7% (p=0.79). Each device had an excessive number (12-22%) of individual results that exceeded NCEP recommended total error for a single cholesterol measurement (+/- 8.9%). In the precision analysis the average CV from all three serum pools was 4.0% and 5.3% for the LDX and AccuMeter, respectively (p<0.05). Thus both devices failed to meet the NCEP recommendation for precision of 3% CV. They both provided total cholesterol results that correctly classified individual patients into appropriate risk groups 95% of the time or better if values within +/- 8.9% of NCEP cut points for risk classification were ignored. Both devices met the NCEP +/- 3% requirement for total cholesterol mean percent bias but did not meet the +/- 3% requirement for CV as a measure of precision. Because of the variability in results, both devices had excessive numbers of individual subjects with total cholesterol results greater than the recommended total error limit of +/- 8.9% difference from the standardized method. Despite variability in some individual results, the rate of clinical misclassifications for coronary heart disease risk was relatively low for both devices if results near the NCEP cut points were repeated.

The lipid-lowering effects of atorvastatin, a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor: results of a randomized, double-masked study

This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked, parallel-group trial assessed the serum cholesterol-lowering effects of atorvastatin, a new 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme. A reductase inhibitor, over 26 weeks in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Thirty-nine patients from four centers in the United States were originally randomized to one of two treatment groups and received either atorvastatin 10 mg (20 patients) or placebo (19 patients) once daily. Atorvastatin rapidly and significantly reduced serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and apolipoprotein B levels. LDL-C was reduced 35% with atorvastatin 10 mg compared with a 0% increase in LDL-C in the placebo group. Atorvastatin significantly reduced triglyceride levels, with improvements occurring over time. At 26 weeks, triglyceride levels were reduced by 21% with atorvastatin treatment compared with a 14% increase with placebo. The drug was well tolerated and no clinically significant laboratory abnormalities were detected.

Atorvastatin, a New HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitor as Monotherapy and Combined With Colestipol

BACKGROUND: Atorvastatin, a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor in clinical development has demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and marked cholesterol and triglyceride reduction at doses ranging from 10-80 mg/day. Since bile acid sequestering resins are often used in combination with HMGRIs to enhance cholesterol reduction, this trial was conducted to explore the use of atorvastatin alone and combined with colestipol in patients with primary hyperlipidemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred six patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol >4.1 mM/L (160 mg/dL) and plasma triglycerides <3.9 mM/L (350 mg/dL) were randomized to treatment consisting of 20 g/day colestipol, 10 mg/day atorvastatin, or 10 mg/day atorvastatin plus 20 g/day colestipol for 12 weeks. Percent change from baseline in lipid variables were measured. The atorvastatin group showed a significant reduction in LDL cholesterol of 35% after 12 weeks. Combination therapy provided an additional 10% reduction in LDL cholesterol over that observed for atorvastatin alone. Twenty-one percent of all patients in the atorvastatin monotherapy group experienced associated adverse events compared with 60% in the combination therapy group. Ninety percent of atorvastatin monotherapy patients were compliant at every visit compared with 75% receiving combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although the combination of atorvastatin plus colestipol was more effective in lowering LDL cholesterol than atorvastatin alone, atorvastatin 10 mg/day monotherapy provided a better safety profile and improved patient compliance, which may result in improved long-term cholesterol control.

The effect of supplemental dietary fat on plasma cholesterol levels in lovastatin-treated hypercholesterolemic patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

A validation study was conducted first to test assumptions about the effect of saturated and unsaturated dietary fat supplements. The second study was conducted to determine the effect on blood cholesterol levels of saturated and unsaturated fat supplements in patients who followed a low-fat diet and were administered lovastatin.

DESIGN

Randomized, crossover design, with three periods in the first study and four in the second study, each lasting 6 weeks.

SETTING

Cholesterol Research Center.

PATIENTS

The first study evaluated adults with total cholesterol levels between 200 and 280 mg/dl (5.172 and 7.241 mmol/L). The second study included adults with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels above 160 mg/dl (4.138 mmol/L).

INTERVENTIONS

Fat supplements with either coconut or canola oil were delivered to patients in oatmeal-raisin cookies.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In the validation study, patients' mean prerandomization total cholesterol level of 222 mg/dl was reduced to 213 mg/dl with canola oil and increased to 233 mg/dl with coconut oil cookies (p = 0.0038). In the second study the mean prerandomization total cholesterol level of 214 mg/dl was decreased to 199 mg/dl with canola oil and to 208 mg/dl with coconut oil cookies (p = 0.2342). The LDL cholesterol levels changed in a similar fashion in both studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in total and LDL cholesterol levels in the validation study were expected based on established effects of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, but changes in these levels in lovastatin-cookie study were not expected. They could have occurred because lovastatin reversed the effect of saturated fats and enhanced the effect of unsaturated fats. Alternatively, they may have been due to enhanced bioavailability of lovastatin when administered with a high-fat diet. These findings must be confirmed.

A comparison of the efficacy and toxic effects of sustained- vs immediate-release niacin in hypercholesterolemic patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare escalating doses of immediate-release (IR) and sustained-release (SR) niacin for effectiveness in reducing levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides and increasing levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and for the occurrence of adverse reactions, especially hepatotoxicity.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, parallel comparison of IR and SR niacin administered sequentially at 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, and 3000 mg/d, each for 6 weeks.

SETTING

Cholesterol research center.

PATIENTS

Forty-six adults, 23 in each group, with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels greater than 4.14 mmol/L (160 mg/dL) after 1 month of a step 1 National Cholesterol Education Program diet.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Fourteen-hour fasting lipid and lipoprotein cholesterol levels, results of clinical laboratory tests, a symptom questionnaire, and withdrawal rates.

RESULTS

The SR niacin lowered low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels significantly more than IR niacin did at the dosage of 1500 mg/d and above, while IR niacin increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels significantly more than SR niacin did at all dosage levels. The reduction in triglyceride levels was similar with IR and SR niacin. Nine (39%) of the 23 patients assigned to the IR dosage form withdrew before completing the 3000-mg daily dose; the most common reasons for withdrawal were vasodilatory symptoms, fatigue, and acanthosis nigricans. Eighteen (78%) of the 23 patients assigned to the SR dosage form withdrew before completing the 3000-mg daily dose; the most common reasons for withdrawal were gastrointestinal tract symptoms, fatigue, and increases in levels of liver aminotransferases, often with symptoms of hepatic dysfunction. None of the patients taking IR niacin developed hepatotoxic effects, while 12 (52%) of the 23 patients taking SR niacin did.

CONCLUSION

The SR form of niacin is hepatotoxic and should be restricted from use. The IR niacin is preferred for the management of hypercholesterolemia but can also cause significant adverse effects and should be given only to patients who can be carefully monitored by experienced health professionals.

Understanding and treating dyslipidemia associated with noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hypertension

Hypertension and diabetes appear to increase coronary heart disease risk in part by causing an abnormality in lipid metabolism. Most affected are patients with familial dyslipidemic hypertension (FDH) and noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). The lipid disorders most often encountered in these patients are increased levels of triglycerides, very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol, and small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. These abnormalities appear to result from increased hepatic secretion of VLDL particles due to increased concentrations of free fatty acids and glucose, reduced VLDL clearance due to reduced activity of lipoprotein lipase, and reduced LDL clearance due to glycosylation of ligand proteins. Treatment of the dyslipidemia associated with FDH should follow the guidelines from the National Cholesterol Education Program. Treatment in men and women with NIDDM should be considered when LDL cholesterol levels are 130 mg/dl or above, triglyceride levels are 200 mg/dl or above, or non-HDL cholesterol levels are 160 mg/dl or greater. Aggressive lifestyle changes should be initiated first, including weight loss in obese patients, control of glucose levels in those with NIDDM, avoidance of antihypertensive drugs that may worsen lipid levels in patients with FDH, and eating a diet restricting saturated fat and cholesterol. Addition of lipid-altering drugs should be considered if such changes do not achieve effective lipid control. The agent should be tailored to the patient's lipid profile, in general by using bile acid resins, niacin, or reductase inhibitors to lower LDL cholesterol and gemfibrozil or niacin to lower triglycerides. Niacin should be avoided in patients with NIDDM.

An evaluation of two compact analyzers used for lipid analysis

BACKGROUND

A number of relatively inexpensive compact analyzers are available for use in physician offices and outpatient clinics to measure total cholesterol and, more recently, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and triglycerides. This study was designed to document the analytical performance of two of them, the Abbott Vision and the Kodak Ektachem DT60, for assays of total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and calculated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

METHODS

Lipid profiles were measured from venous blood samples of 70 subjects with each test device, and results were compared with those from a laboratory standardized to the Centers for Disease Control. Coefficient of variation (CV) of multiple measurements from three pools of human serum (ie, precision), mean percent difference between device and standard laboratory results (ie, accuracy or bias), and 95% tolerance intervals (total error) were determined. The correct classification of patients into risk categories with device results was compared with the standardized laboratory results.

RESULTS

The average CVs for total cholesterol, triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol with the Vision analyzer were 3.6%, 4.4%, and 10.5%, respectively, and with the DT60, 5.0%, 4.1%, and 6.8%, respectively. The average percent biases for the same analytes with the Vision analyzer were 0.2%, 4.0%, and -2.3%, respectively, and with the DT60, -2.1%, 12.1%, and 0.1%, respectively. Total error assessments indicated that total and HDL cholesterol measurements in individual patients met the guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program with both devices, but that triglycerides and LDL cholesterol measurements did not. Classification of subjects into risk groups based on total or LDL cholesterol gave clinically satisfactory results with either device.

CONCLUSIONS

More precise measurement technology for LDL cholesterol is needed. Physicians and others who rely on compact analyzer results for diagnosis and treatment decisions should consider the degree of inaccuracy and imprecision in these values.

Effect of hydrochlorothiazide, enalapril, and propranolol on quality of life and cognitive and motor function in hypertensive patients

The effect of hydrochlorothiazide, propranolol, and enalapril on cognitive and motor function and quality of life (QOL) in hypertensive patients was studied. Patients > or = 55 years of age with asymptomatic essential hypertension were included in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Subjects discontinued their previous antihypertensive agents and started hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, extended-release propranolol hydrochloride 120 mg, enalapril maleate 10 mg, or placebo. One capsule was taken for three days and then the dosage was doubled for the remainder of a four-week period. Subsequent crossover treatments were begun without a washout period. In each treatment phase, a battery of psychometric tests was used to assess cognitive and motor function and quality of life; all tests but one were self-administered via computer terminal. Pulse rate and blood pressure were recorded, and compliance was monitored by capsule count. Sixteen of 30 patients interviewed completed the trials; one additional patient was evaluated after receiving all treatments except hydrochlorothiazide. Mean +/- S.D. age of the subjects was 66 +/- 6.1 years; 10 were black and 7 white; 9 were men. Except for the hydrochlorothiazide group, blood pressure in the active treatment groups did not differ significantly from placebo; hydrochlorothiazide significantly reduced systolic but not diastolic blood pressure compared with placebo. Compared with placebo, hydrochlorothiazide was associated with fewer incorrect responses in a test of complex reaction time and with greater discriminant reaction time response rates; otherwise, no difference between groups was noted in cognitive or motor performance. There were no significant differences between active treatments and placebo on individual QOL measures.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Total error assessment of five methods for cholesterol screening

We report the accuracy, imprecision, total analytical errors, and patient misclassification errors for cholesterol measured from capillary whole blood, venous whole blood, and venous plasma samples by five devices used in public cholesterol screening environments: Reflotron, Vision, Ektachem DT-60, QuickRead, and Liposcan. None of the methods met the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) performance recommendations of 3% CV with 3% bias. The Vision and Reflotron methods used with venous samples gave individual results with total errors consistent with a combined CV and bias in the 4-5% range; capillary blood samples had total errors &gt; 5% (combined CV and bias criteria). The DT-60 performance was near the 5% total error criterion for capillary samples and was &gt; 5% for venous samples. Misclassification of individuals into desirable or referral groups for venous samples was as great as 5.1% for the DT-60, 5.7% for the Vision, and 7.1% for the Reflotron. Misclassifications for capillary blood samples were as great as 6.7%, 18.3%, and 14.1% for DT-60, Vision, and Reflotron, respectively. The QuickRead and Liposcan results were substantially poorer than those obtained by the other methods.

Total error assessment of five methods for cholesterol screening

We report the accuracy, imprecision, total analytical errors, and patient misclassification errors for cholesterol measured from capillary whole blood, venous whole blood, and venous plasma samples by five devices used in public cholesterol screening environments: Reflotron, Vision, Ektachem DT-60, QuickRead, and Liposcan. None of the methods met the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) performance recommendations of 3% CV with 3% bias. The Vision and Reflotron methods used with venous samples gave individual results with total errors consistent with a combined CV and bias in the 4-5% range; capillary blood samples had total errors > 5% (combined CV and bias criteria). The DT-60 performance was near the 5% total error criterion for capillary samples and was > 5% for venous samples. Misclassification of individuals into desirable or referral groups for venous samples was as great as 5.1% for the DT-60, 5.7% for the Vision, and 7.1% for the Reflotron. Misclassifications for capillary blood samples were as great as 6.7%, 18.3%, and 14.1% for DT-60, Vision, and Reflotron, respectively. The QuickRead and Liposcan results were substantially poorer than those obtained by the other methods.

Comparison of gemfibrozil and lovastatin in patients with high low-density lipoprotein and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of gemfibrozil and lovastatin in the treatment of patients who have an elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level and a low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) level was compared.

METHODS

After at least 6 weeks of a cholestgerol-lowering diet, 17 patients who had a mean baseline LDL-C level above 4.14 mmol/L (160 mg/dL) and an HDL-C level below 1.03 mmol/L (40 mg/dL) received gemfibrozil 600 mg twice daily and lovastatin 20 mg twice daily each for 6 weeks according to a randomized, crossover, double-blind research design.

RESULTS

Lovastatin and gemfibrozil reduced LDL-C levels 34% and 9% and raised HDL-C levels 15% and 18%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Lovastatin is more effective in lowering LDL-C levels and is as effective as gemfibrozil in increasing HDL-C levels in these patients.

Impact of an electronic medication compliance aid on long-term blood pressure control

A two-phase study was conducted to assess the effect of an electronic medication compliance aid on hypertension control and pharmaceutical compliance in ambulatory patients. In Phase I (12 weeks), 36 patients were randomly assigned to a medication vial equipped with a cap containing a digital timepiece that displays the last time the cap was removed. The control group included 34 patients randomly assigned to a standard medication vial. Subjects using the timepiece cap showed an average compliance rate of 95.1%, an average decrease in systolic pressure of 7.6 mm Hg (P = .006), and an average decrease in diastolic pressure of 8.8 mm Hg (P less than .001). Controls had an average compliance rate of 78% and decreases of 2.8 mm Hg and 0.2 mm Hg in systolic and diastolic pressures, respectively. Phase II (12 weeks) combined use of the timepiece cap with other compliance aids: a pocket-size card for recording blood pressure and a blood pressure cuff for self-monitoring. Patients using the timepiece cap and the card had an average compliance rate of 98.7% with mean decreases of 11 mm Hg in systolic pressure (P less than .01) and 7.64 Hg mm in diastolic pressure (P = .0001). The combined use of the cap, the card, and the blood pressure cuff resulted in an average 100.2% compliance rate with mean decreases of 15 mm Hg (P = .0006) and 6.60 mm Hg (P = .0006) in systolic and diastolic pressures, respectively. Results of the two-phase study showed statistically significant increases in medication compliance associated with statistically and clinically significant reductions in blood pressure for all patients using the timepiece cap.

Clinical evaluation of a finger oscillometric blood pressure device

An oscillometric blood pressure (BP) device designed for recording systemic BP from a finger was compared with a random-zero, mercury-column sphygmomanometer in 76 subjects recruited from the patient population and staff of a primary-care center. After both devices were placed on the left arm or finger of the left hand, three BP readings were obtained with each device in alternating fashion, thereby according random assignment. The mean for all measurements was 119.2/72.4 mm Hg for the finger device and 118.6/75.3 mm Hg for the random-zero sphygmomanometer; systolic readings were not different (p = 0.53) but diastolic readings were different (p = 0.001). There were considerable differences among the readings obtained with the two devices in individual patients: the mean differences +/- tolerance limits for readings obtained with the finger device compared with the random-zero device were 0.6 +/- 33.5 mm Hg for systolic and -2.9 +/- 25.3 mm Hg for diastolic readings. There was also considerable variability in the readings obtained with the finger device; the minimum to maximum differences in 39 systolic (51 percent) and 26 diastolic readings (34 percent) were greater than 10 mm Hg with the finger device; 24 systolic (32 percent) and 11 diastolic readings (14 percent) differed by this amount with the random-zero device. The variability in measurements made with the finger device was significantly different from the random-zero device for diastolic pressure (p = 0.0048) but not for systolic pressures (p = 0.8729). Based on the experience obtained in this study, devices to measure BP from the finger cannot be recommended for routine use.

Renin profile, race, and antihypertensive efficacy with atenolol and labetalol

In this randomised double-blind parallel study, we compared the efficacy of labetalol and atenolol in a group of black (n = 33) and white (n = 34) hypertensives with uncomplicated essential hypertension after obtaining pretreatment renin profiles. After single-blind placebo (14-21 days), patients with standing diastolic BP between 105-119 mmHg were randomised to receive either labetalol (100-800 mg twice daily) or atenolol (50-100 mg once daily) to achieve a DBP less than 90 mmHg. Dosage titration occurred at weekly intervals for labetalol and biweekly for atenolol. The supine BP decrease with atenolol was -18/-14 vs. -6/-6 mmHg in whites vs. blacks respectively. With labetalol, it was -13/-12 in whites and -2/-7 mmHg in blacks. Standing BPs were: -19/-14 vs. -4/-5, whites vs. blacks with atenolol and -17/-17 vs. -19/-9 mmHg with labetalol. Neither labetalol nor atenolol was as effective in black compared with white hypertensives. The atenolol but not labetalol BP response was positively correlated with pretreatment renin values.

The effects of benazepril, a new angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, in mild to moderate essential hypertension: a multicenter study

Benazepril hydrochloride is a new angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. In a multicenter study, 206 patients with mild to moderate hypertension were randomized to receive benazepril at a dose of 2, 5, 10, or 20 mg, hydrochlorothiazide, 25 mg, or placebo once daily for 4 weeks. The 20 mg dosage of benazepril lowered blood pressure to a degree equal to that of 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide: -12.2/7.7 mm Hg and -13.4/-7.5 mm Hg, respectively. Hydrochlorothiazide proved to be more effective in black subjects. At lower dosage levels of benazepril (2, 5, and 10 mg), blood pressure reduction was not significantly different from that with placebo. In those patients who failed to achieve goal diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg with monotherapy after 4 weeks, the addition of open-label hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg/day) to benazepril, hydrochlorothiazide, or placebo produced a substantial additional decrease in blood pressure over a 2-week period. No definite adverse effects on hematologic measurements, serum biochemistry test results, or urinalyses were noted. Subjective adverse experiences were common in all groups but except in three or possibly four instances were not considered causally related to the study drug.

The effect of phenylpropanolamine on 24-hour blood pressure in normotensive subjects administered indomethacin

We evaluated the effect of phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride (PPA) in 14 young, healthy, normotensive women who concurrently received indomethacin. Subjects received sustained-release (SR) indomethacin 75 mg bid and were randomly assigned to receive double-blind SR PPA 75 mg/d or placebo for four days. After a six-day washout period, subjects were crossed over to the opposite four-day double-blind treatment. Following an additional six-day washout period, subjects received indomethacin placebo and PPA placebo during a final, single-blind four-day period. Twenty-four-hour blood pressure (BP) monitoring every 30 minutes and a 24-hour urine collection for prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) were performed on the fourth day of each treatment period. Compliance with the medication regimen was confirmed by drug concentrations, pill counts, and urinary PGE2 concentrations. Compared with the indomethacin and placebo treatment periods, the combination of indomethacin and PPA had no significant effect on mean systolic or diastolic BP during the 24-hour study period or during any four-hour interval. We conclude that the combination of SR PPA 75 mg/d and SR indomethacin 150 mg/d for four days has no adverse effect on BP in normotensive women.

Once-daily pravastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a dose-response study

This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to evaluate dose-response effects and safety of once-daily administration of pravastatin, a new inhibitor of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase. Pravastatin 5, 10, 20, 40 mg or placebo was administered at bedtime to 150 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia inadequately controlled on a low-fat, low-cholesterol (AHA Phase I) diet. After 8 weeks of treatment, pravastatin produced dose-dependent reductions in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol of 19.2 to 34.1% (p less than or equal to .001 vs. baseline and placebo) and reductions in total cholesterol of 14.3 to 25.1% (p less than or equal to .01 to p less than or equal to .001 vs. placebo and p less than or equal to .001 vs. baseline). The relationship between the loge dose of pravastatin and decrease in LDL cholesterol was linear (p less than 0.002). High-density-lipoprotein cholesterol increased up to 11.7% and triglycerides decreased by as much as 23.9%. Pravastatin was well tolerated; no patient withdrew from the study as a consequence of treatment-related adverse events. Despite its relatively short serum half-life of approximately 2 h, once-daily administration of pravastatin provides a safe and effective means of reducing elevated LDL and total cholesterol.

The effect of high-dose short-term ibuprofen on antihypertensive control with hydrochlorothiazide

The effect of high-dose ibuprofen, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), on the blood pressure of treated hypertensive patients was evaluated in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Twelve middle-aged black women with essential hypertension, controlled with 50 mg hydrochlorothiazide per day, randomly received 3200 mg ibuprofen and a placebo for 8 days. Each treatment phase was separated by a 1-week washout period. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), body weight, and 24-hour urinary excretion of sodium, creatinine, and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) were determined at the end of each treatment phase. Mean (+/- SEM) 24-hour systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 122/85 (+/- 2.9/1.7) and 125/85 (+/- 3.0/1.1) during the placebo and ibuprofen phases, respectively. Mean ABPM during six consecutive 4-hour periods also revealed no significant differences between placebo and ibuprofen. We conclude that 3200 mg ibuprofen per day for up to 1 week induced little change in blood pressure in hypertensive who are receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

Treatment of hypercholesterolemia in black patients

The treatment of hypercholesterolemia in the black patient will be the next public health challenge facing physicians in the black community. Cost-effective care of hypercholesterolemia will be necessary and is possible, but it will require skill in the use of available therapies, extensive patient education, and excellent communication between patients and health care providers.

Lovastatin: a new cholesterol-lowering agent

The chemistry, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, dosage and administration, and adverse effects of lovastatin are reviewed. Lovastatin is the first agent marketed in a new class of pharmacologic compounds called the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG CoA) reductase inhibitors. By competitively inhibiting HMG CoA reductase, the drug disrupts the biosynthesis of cholesterol in hepatic and peripheral cells. This increases the synthesis of low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) receptors and thereby increases the uptake of LDL cholesterol from the plasma. In doses of 20 to 80 mg daily, lovastatin decreases total and LDL cholesterol concentrations 25 to 45%. It also substantially reduces concentrations of triglycerides, very-low-density-lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B and slightly increases high-density-lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentrations. Lovastatin is effective in patients with heterozygous familial and nonfamilial (polygenic) hypercholesterolemia but is ineffective in patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. It is also effective in combination with bile acid sequestrants, nicotinic acid, and gemfibrozil. Administration of lovastatin once daily in the evening (to enhance compliance) or twice daily is recommended to maximize the drug's cholesterol-lowering effects. Headache and gastrointestinal complaints are the most common adverse effects. Treatment has been withdrawn from 1.9% of patients receiving the drug because of elevated aminotransferase concentrations. The relationship of lovastatin to the development of lens opacities requires further evaluation. Lovastatin is highly effective in the treatment of primary hypercholesterolemia and represents an important therapeutic advance. Safety with long-term use and effect on coronary heart disease remain to be established.

Effect of high-dose ibuprofen on 24-hour blood pressure in healthy women

The nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) indomethacin has been shown to increase blood pressure in normotensive individuals. The effect of other NSAID on blood pressure has not been as well studied. We evaluated the effects of ibuprofen, an NSAID currently available without a prescription, on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in ten young, healthy, normotensive women. Using a randomized, crossover, double-blind design, subjects received ibuprofen 800 mg and a placebo identical in appearance to ibuprofen three times a day for eight days with a washout period between regimens. Subjects were instructed to follow a no-added salt diet during the study. Twenty-four-hour blood pressure monitoring and 24-hour urine collection for prostaglandin E2, creatinine, and sodium were performed on days 1 and 8 of each study week. Tablet counts and a 40 percent reduction in urinary prostaglandin E2 documented compliance with ibuprofen. Ibuprofen had no significant effect on systolic or diastolic blood pressure at any hour during the 24-hour period. Mean blood pressure for the 24-hour period was 112/73 and 111/73 mm Hg on day 1 and 111/73 and 112/73 mm Hg on day 8 for placebo and ibuprofen, respectively. We conclude that ibuprofen at doses as high as 2400 mg/d for up to seven days has no effect on blood pressure in normotensive women. Further studies are needed in hypertensive subjects.

The effect of phenylpropanolamine on ambulatory blood pressure

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) is a sympathomimetic amine and component of many over-the-counter decongestants and anorectic agents. It has been reported to cause elevated blood pressure and even hypertensive crises. The pressor effects with therapeutic doses are not well established. We monitored the effects of acute and chronic PPA dosing using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure recording as a sensitive method of monitoring blood pressure variability. Eighteen normotensive male subjects were randomly assigned to receive 75 mg PPA (sustained-release preparation) or placebo in a double-blind crossover design with blood pressure monitored on days 1 (D1) and 6 (D6) of each period. There was no significant difference in blood pressure when compared as either 2-hour intervals or 24-hour global means: (placebo) 116/68 (D1), 117/68 (D6); (PPA) 118/69 (D1), 119/69 (D6). Our results document the absence of pressor effect with PPA in therapeutic doses even with repeated measurements and further confirm the reproducibility of 24-hour blood pressure monitoring.