Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Systolic and diastolic blood pressure control in antihypertensive drug trials

Mancia, Giuseppe; Grassi, Guido

Editor's corner

Clinica Medica, Dipartimento di Medicina, Prevenzione e Biotecnologie Sanitarie, Università Milano-Bicocca, Ospedale San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Milan, and Centro Interuniversitario di Fisiologia Clinica ed Ipertensione, and Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy.

Correspondence and requests for reprints to Professor Giuseppe Mancia, Clinica Medica, Ospedale San Gerardo dei Tintori, Via Donizetti 106, 20052 Monza, Milan, Italy. Tel: +39 039 2333357; fax: +39 039 322254; e-mail:

All published studies agree that hypertension is a poorly diagnosed and treated condition [1,2]. That is, (i) in all countries, the number of subjects in which hypertension is identified is noticeably smaller than that suffering from a blood pressure elevation; (ii) individuals who, after the diagnosis of hypertension, undergo antihypertensive treatment are even less; and (iii) those who have their blood pressure reduced below 140/90 mmHg (systolic/diastolic) because of treatment are no more than a minimal fraction of the overall or even the treated hypertensive population. Indeed, the world situation is even worse than it appears from these data because adequate antihypertensive treatment is poorly implemented even in patients with diabetes [3], nephropathy [4] or prior myocardial infarction [5,6], in whom blood pressure reductions have extremely large life- or disease-saving effects. Furthermore, control rate is particularly low for systolic blood pressure [7,8], which prevails over the diastolic counterpart in determining the overall risk profile [9,10]. Finally, the number of patients with controlled blood pressures becomes dramatically small if values well below 140/90 mmHg (i.e. those offering the greatest degree of protection in several conditions) are considered.

Two main explanations have received large credit for the frequent lack of blood pressure control in the treated hypertensive population. One explanation is that, for a variety of reasons, patient compliance to treatment is low [11]. The other is that physicians contribute to this phenomenon in several ways: failure to properly inform and motivate patients; inability to see them as often as needed; and insistance on moving from one monotherapy to another when the antihypertensive response is inadequate without resorting to combination of two or more drugs, thus envisaging a multimechanicistic approach to a multifactorially governed variable such as blood pressure [12].

The above explanations imply that when patient compliance and the expertise of physicians are adequate, blood pressure can be effectively lowered to goal levels. This may be the case for diastolic but not for systolic values, however. Figure 1 shows the blood pressure values in several recent controlled trials on antihypertensive individuals [13–22], that is under conditions in which patient motivation and adherence to treatment on one side, and the ability of physicians to use appropriate drug combinations and doses on the other, unquestionably met high standards. It can be seen that whenever the initial blood pressures were high, treatment was accompanied by large blood pressure reductions. However, while the achieved average diastolic blood pressure was almost invariably well below 90 mmHg and even 80 mmHg, the concomitant systolic value remained above or only slightly below 140 mmHg, the number of individual patients with ‘on treatment’ values below 90 and 140 mmHg being approximately 90 and 50%, respectively [13–22]. This is also the case in diabetic hypertensive patients (Fig. 2) in whom the achieved blood pressure values were higher than in non-diabetic patients despite the use of a larger number of drugs (Fig. 3) [23–34]. Thus, the conclusion can be drawn that even when patient compliance and physicians’ expertise are ensured, systolic blood pressure control is neither frequently nor easily obtained. Furthermore, this goal requires drug doses and combinations that go far beyond those necessary for diastolic blood pressure control. This should be kept in mind when recommendations to lower systolic blood pressure to values well below 140 mmHg, or even 130 mmHg, are given to general practitioners as if they were realistic values to obtain in their patients [1,2].

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

We see three possibilities ahead: (i) to accept that optimal systolic blood pressure control will never be frequently achievable, possibly because systolic blood pressure elevation is due in part to large artery wall thickening and this may not be entirely reversible. (ii) To count on the availability of new drugs with a more powerful effect on systolic blood pressure. (iii) To advise the systematic use of multiple combinations of drugs given at full doses (i.e. an approach which has been found to increase the rate of systolic blood pressure control in the VALUE Study) [35]. However, it should be noted that in this study the percentage of treated hypertensive patients without systolic blood pressure control still remained elevated, approaching the rate of the concomitant diastolic blood pressure control (Julius S., personal communication).

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 2413–2446.
2. Guidelines Subcommittee. 1999 World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the management of hypertension J Hypertens 1999; 17: 151–183.
3. Bakris GL. A practical approach to achieving recommended blood pressure goals in diabetic patients. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 2661–2667.
4. Rodicio JL, Alcazar JM. Hypertension in chronic renal failure. J Hypertens 2001; 19: 2111–2114.
5. Euroaspire II Study Group. Lifestyle and risk factor management and use of drug therapies in coronary patients from 15 countries: principal results from EUROASPIRE II Euro Heart Survey Programme. Eur Heart J 2001; 22: 554–572.
6. Magnani B, Dal Palò C, Zanchetti A, and the MC '95 investigators. Current standard of care in patients affected by coronary heart disease in Italy: the MC '95 study. Ital Heart J 2002; 3: 86–95.
7. Whyte JL, Lapuerta P, L'Italien GJ, Franklin SS. The challenge of controlling systolic blood pressure: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), 1988–1994. J Clin Hypertens 2002; 3: 211–216.
8. Mancia G, Bombelli M, Lanzarotti A, Grassi G, Cesana G, Zanchetti A. et al. Systolic versus diastolic blood pressure control in the hypertensive patients of the PAMELA population. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 582–586.
9. Kannel WB, Gordon T, Schwarz MJ. Systolic versus diastolic blood pressure and risk of coronary heart disease: Framingham Study. Am J Cardiol 1971; 27: 335–356.
10. Levy D. The role of systolic blood pressure in determining risk for cardiovascular diseases. J Hypertens 1999; 17 (suppl 1): S5–S18.
11. Urquhart J. Patient non-compliance with drug regimens: measurement, clinical correlates, economic impact. Eur Heart J 1996; 17 (suppl A): 8–15.
12. Zanchetti A. Contribution of fixed low-dose combinations to initial therapy in hypertension. Eur Heart J 1999; 1 (suppl L): L5–L9.
13. Hansson L, Hedner T, Lund-Johansen P, Kjeldsen SE, Lindholm LH, Syvertsen JO. et al., for the NORDIL Study Group. Randomized 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: 359–365.
14. Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A, de Leeuw PW, Mancia G, Rosenthal T. 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: 366–372.
15. Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, Dahlof B, Elmfeldt D, Julius S. et al. Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomized trial. Lancet 1998; 351: 1755–1762.
16. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Niskanen L, Lanke J, Hedner T, Niclason A. et al. Effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomized trial. Lancet 1999; 353: 611–615.
17. PROGRESS Collaborative Group. Randomized trial of a perindopril-based blood pressure-lowering regimen among 6105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet 2001; 358: 1033–1041.
18. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 145–153.
19. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Ekbom T, Dahlof B, Lanke J, Schersten B. et al. Randomized trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and mobidity in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2 study. Lancet 1999; 354: 1751–1756.
20. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) Collaborative Research Group. Major cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients randomized to doxazosin vs. chlorthalidone: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 2000; 283: 1967–1975.
21. Dahlof B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, Julius S, Beevers G, Faire U. et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002; 359: 995–1003.
22. Gong L, Zhang W, Zhu Y, Zhu J, Kong D, Page V. et al. Shanghai trial of nifedipine in the elderly (STONE). J Hypertens 1996; 14: 1237–1245.
23. Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study Investigators. Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Lancet 2000; 355: 253–259.
24. United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Efficacy of atenolol and captopril in reducing risk of macrovascular and microvascular complicantions in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 39. BMJ 1998; 317: 713–721.
25. Tatti P, Pahor M, Byington RP, Di Mauro P, Guarisco R, Strollo G. et al. Outcomes results of the Fosinopril versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Trial (FACET) in patients with hypertension and NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 597–603.
26. Estacio RO, Jeffers BW, Hiatt WR, Biggerstaff SL, Gifford N, Schner RW. The effect of nisoldipine as compared with enalapril on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes and hypertension. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 645–652.
27. Brown MJ, Castaigne A, de Leuuw PW, Mancia G, Palmer C, Rosenthal T. et al. Influence of diabetics and type of hypertension on response to antihypertensive treatment. Hypertension 2000; 35: 1038–1042.
28. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, Berl T, Pohl MA, Lewis JB. et al. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type-2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 851–860.
29. Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, Keane WF, Mitch WE, Parving HH. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type-2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 861–869.
30. Parving HH, Lehnert H, Mortensen J, Gomis R, Andersen S, Arner P. The effect of irbesartan on the development of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type-2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 870–878.
31. Niskanen L, Hedner T, Hansson L, Lanke J, Niklason A. Reduced CV morbidity and mortality in hypertensive diabetic patients on first-line therapy with an ACE inhibitor compared with a diuretic/beta-blocker-based treatment regimen. A subanalysis of the Captopril Prevention Project. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 2091–2096.
32. Lindholm LH, Ibsen H, Dahlof B, Devereux RB, Beevers G, de Faire U. et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002; 359: 1004–1010.
33. Lindholm LH, Hansson L, Ekbom T, Dahlof B, Lanke J, Linjer E. et al. Comparison of antihypertensive treatments in preventing cardiovascular events in elderly diabetic patients: results from the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension–2. STOP Hypertension-2 Study Group. J Hypertens. 2000; 18: 1671–1675.
34. Zanchetti A, Hansson L, Dahlof B, Elmfeld D, Kjeldsen S, Kolloch R. et al., on behalf of the HOT Study Group. Effects of individual risk factors on the incidence of cardiovascular events in the treated hypertensive patients of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment Study J Hypertens 2001; 19: 1149–1159.
35. Mann J, Julius S. The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial on cardiovascular events in hypertension: rationale and design. Blood Press 1998; 7: 176–183.
© 2002 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.