Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

The Effects of Calcium Channel Blockers in the Prevention of Stroke in Adults with Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis of Data from 273,543 Participants in 31 Randomized Controlled Trials

  • Gui Jv Chen,

    Affiliation Laboratory of Disorder Genes and Department of Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China

  • Mao Sheng Yang

    yangmaosheng@hotmail.com

    Affiliation Laboratory of Disorder Genes and Department of Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China

The Effects of Calcium Channel Blockers in the Prevention of Stroke in Adults with Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis of Data from 273,543 Participants in 31 Randomized Controlled Trials

  • Gui Jv Chen, 
  • Mao Sheng Yang
PLOS
x

Abstract

Background

Hypertension is a major risk factor for the development of stroke. It is well known that lowering blood pressure decreases the risk of stroke in people with moderate to severe hypertension. However, the specific effects of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) against stroke in patients with hypertension as compared to no treatment and other antihypertensive drug classes are not known.

Methods and Findings

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated CCBs effect on stroke in patients with hypertension in studies of CCBs versus placebo, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), β-adrenergic blockers, and diuretics. The PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, CNKI, MEDCH, and WANFANG databases were searched for trials published in English or Chinese during the period January 1, 1996 to July 31, 2012. A total of 177 reports were collected, among them 31 RCTs with 273,543 participants (including 130,466 experimental subjects and 143,077 controls) met the inclusion criteria. In these trials a total of 9,550 stroke events (4,145 in experimental group and 5,405 in control group) were reported. CCBs significantly decreased the incidence of stroke compared with placebo (OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.61–0.75, p<1×10−5), β-adrenergic blockers combined with diuretics (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.83–0.95, p = 7×10−5) and β-adrenergic blockers (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.72–0.87, p<1×10−5), statistically significant difference was not found between CCBs and ACEIs (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.8–1.02, p = 0.12) or diuretics (OR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.84–1.07, p = 0.39).

Conclusion

In a pooled analysis of data of 31 RCTs measuring the effect of CCBs on stroke, CCBs reduced stroke more than placebo and β-adrenergic blockers, but were not different than ACEIs and diuretics. More head to head RCTs are warranted.

Introduction

Hypertension (MIM #14500) is one of the most common chronic diseases, and the most frequent reason for people to consult their doctor and take medication. Hypertension can burst a blood vessel or/and accelerate narrowing of arteries in the brain to cause a stroke which, if not lethal, can result in many catastrophic complications such as paralysis, aphasia, coma and so forth. The damage to the brain cannot be repaired, so the only rational approach is prevention. Hypertension is a major risk factor for the development of stroke. In 1964, it was first demonstrated that antihypertensive agents could reduce the risk of strokes [1]. It is well known that lowering blood pressure decreases the risk of stroke in people with moderate to severe hypertension [2]. There are eight classifications of antihypertensive agents in use today: α-adrenergic blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor antagonists, antiadrenergic agents, β-adrenergic blockers or β blockers, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), diuretics, and vasodilators. Despite the widespread use of blood-pressure-lowering agents which one is better against the development of stroke is unclear [3]. Controlling blood pressure in the patients with hypertension or/and stroke has important clinical implications including improved prognosis, reduced mortality and so on [4]. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, β-adrenergic blockers, calcium channel blockers and diuretics are used extensively and listed as the first-line agents in the 1989 WHO/International Society of Hypertension Guidelines [5]. Because each study may have insufficient power to detect the effect of calcium channel blockers against stroke in the patients with hypertension; a meta-study to accumulate data from different studies may address this issue, and the specific effects of CCBs against stroke in patients with hypertension as compared to no treatment and other antihypertensive drug classes are not known. Therefore, the major goal of this work was to perform a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the published data and to figure out whether calcium-channel blockers are better than other first-line antihypertensive agents in the prevention of stroke, as well as to quantify the potential heterogeneity between different studies.

Methods

Data Sources

The PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, CNKI, MEDCH, and WANFANG databases were searched for trials published in English or Chinese during the period January 1, 1996 to July 31, 2012. In addition, all references cited in these studies and previously published review articles were reviewed to identify additional works not indexed by the above databases. Search terms were “antihypertensive agents”, “placebo”, “hypertension”, “diuretics”, “beta-blockers” or “β-adrenergic blockers”, “angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors”, “calcium channel blockers”, “vasodilator agents”, and “stroke”. Bibliographies of studies were also reviewed.

Study Selection

A total of 177 published studies were identified using the screening procedure shown in Figure 1 (see Supplementary Information online). Among them, fifty-eight are systematic reviews and meta-analyses, one hundred and nineteen are randomized controlled trials. After searching, the following information was extracted: author, ethnicity of research subjects, year of publication, numbers of hypertension- and stroke-cases, medicine of treatment, age of patients, and years of followed-up. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomized controlled trials and reported on stroke risk associated with the current use of the first-line antihypertensive agents in population settings.

Quality Assessment

Eligible studies must meet the following inclusion criteria: (1) with original data being independent among studies if more than one studies have overlapping subjects, only the study with bigger/biggest sample size was selected; (2) with the numbers of hypertension- and stroke-cases clearly provided; (3) with data of the first-line antihypertensive agents and/or placebo; (4) with the research design of randomized controlled trials, which is the best approach to evaluating new treatments, to challenging the efficacy of the old one, and to comparing the efficacy of different treatments [6][7]. All the available information was independently extracted by two investigators and no inconsistency was discovered. The quality assessment of evidence and an overall risk of bias assessment for each included study were evaluated by GRADEprofiler software version 3.2.2 and RevMan version 5.0 (see Supplementary Information online), respectively.

Statistical Analysis

Publication bias was detected by Egger’s linear regression test, which measures funnel plot asymmetry on the scale of odds ratio (OR) [8]. Heterogeneity between studies was tested by Cochran’s Q-statistic test [9] and I2 = 100% × (Q-df) ÷ Q [10], respectively. The I2 metric is independent of the number of studies in the meta-analysis, and ranges between 0 and 100% (I2<25%: no heterogeneity; I2 = 25%–50%: moderate heterogeneity; I2 = 50%–75%: high heterogeneity; I2>75%: extreme heterogeneity). Heterogeneity was considered statistically significant when p<0.05 [11]. If results were heterogeneous, the random effects model was used for meta-analysis. OR was pooled using the method of DerSimonian and Laird, and 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed using Woolf’s method. The statistical analysis was conducted by the statistical package RevMan version 5.0 (The Cochrane collaboration, Oxford, England). A p value of less than 0.05 was considered as statistical significant.

Results

The derivation of the databases and published articles is described in Figure 1. A total of one hundred and seventy-seven studies concerning the stroke risk associated with the use of antihypertensive agents in the patients with hypertension were identified. Among them, one hundred and forty-six studies were excluded for (1) No numbers of hypertension- and stroke-cases; (2) Data duplication; (3) Not written in English or Chinese; (4) No randomized controlled trials; (5) Data missing or lacking; (6) No control group. Therefore, thirty-one studies [3][5], [12][39] and a total of 273,543 participants (including 130,466 experimental subjects and 143,077 controls) matched the inclusion criteria and were selected for the statistical test; and a total of 9,550 stroke events (4,145 in experimental group and 5,405 in control group) were reported (see Table 1). The quantity and quality of original investigations play an important role in determining the quality of the meta-analysis. To controlling the publication bias, the funnel test was performed (see Figure 2). No evidence of publication bias was found for the included thirty-one studies. Our analysis also indicated that the heterogeneity between studies was not statistical significance (p>0.05), therefore, the fixed effects model was used for the meta-analysis. The results of quality assessment for each included study indicated that among the included thirty-one studies, twenty-eight reports [3][5], [12][15], [17][25], [27][32], [34][39] were high quality and the remaining three studies [16], [26], [33] were moderate quality (see Table 1 and Supplementary Information online). The overall quality of the evidence was high in our statistical tests.

thumbnail
Figure 2. Funnel plots of odds ratios for all studies in the meta-analyses.

(a) Calcium channel blockers vs Placebo, (b) Calcium channel blockers vs ACEIs, and (c) Calcium channel blockers vs Diuretics or/and β blockers. No evidence of publication bias was found in any of them.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057854.g002

thumbnail
Table 1. Characteristics of 31 randomized controlled trials included in the meta-analyses.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057854.t001

The issue of lost to follow-up or withdrew was identified as follows: 1) six studies [4], [24], [29], [32], [34], [37] reported that no patient was lost to follow-up or withdrew; 2) eight studies [14], [17][18], [23], [25], [35][36], [38] did not report the information of the patient’s follow-up or withdrew; 3) the remaining seventeen studies [3], [5], [12][13], [15][16], [19][22], [26][28], [30][31], [33], [39] reported that some patients were lost to follow-up or withdrew but not gave out the reasons, and the rate of lost to follow-up was not significantly difference between the experimental and control groups (see Supplementary Information online). Therefore, we did not perform the comparisons of incidence of withdrawals due to adverse effects for CCBs versus other drugs, because it was easy to result in a bias.

The results from the risk of bias assessment for each included study indicated that among the included thirty-one studies, fifteen reports [3], [5], [14], [17], [20][22], [27], [29][33], [37], [39] were low risk of bias, thirteen reports [4], [12], [13], [15], [18], [19], [23], [25], [28], [34][36], [38] were unclear risk of bias, and the remaining three studies [16], [26], [33] were high risk of bias (see Table 1 and Supplementary Information online).

There are two types of stroke, ischemic stroke (80%) and hemorrhagic stroke (20%). A total of 60–80% of hypertension patients (blood pressure >140/90 mmHg) face the risk of stroke. Hypertension is associated with ischemic- and hemorrhagic-stroke [40]. The detailed information of ischemic- or hemorrhagic-stroke was not presented in most original studies. The authors of included thirty-one studies have contact. Six reports authors could not contacted, nine reports authors did not response to us, five reports authors responded to us with the information we need, and eleven reports authors responded to us but did not give back the information we need. Therefore, we can not perform sub-groups analysis.

Stroke Events of CCBs vs Placebo

Ten studies were included in this test [12], [14][16], [21], [23], [25][26], [37][38], which consisted of 21,844 experimental subjects and 21,690 controls, and 1,574 stroke events (622 in experimental group and 907 in control group). Statistic test revealed that the CCBs could significantly decline the stroke risk (OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.61–0.75, p<1×10−5) compared with that of placebo (see Figure 3a). The incidence of stroke in CCBs group was decreased by 33.33% [(4.2%-2.8%) ÷ 4.2% × 100%] compared with that of placebo group (see Table 1).

thumbnail
Figure 3. OR and 95% CI of individual studies and pooled data against stroke in the patients with hypertension.

(a) Calcium channel blockers vs Placebo, (b) Calcium channel blockers vs ACEIs, and (c) Calcium channel blockers vs Diuretics or/and β Blockers.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057854.g003

Stroke Events of CCBs vs ACEIs

Eight studies with a total of 15,511 experimental subjects and 15,558 controls were included in this analysis [4], [13], [18], [20], [29], [35][36], [39], and 1446 stroke events were reported (728 in experimental group and 788 in control group). No statistically significant difference was found (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.8–1.02, p = 0.12) between CCBs and ACEIs in their efficiency of against stroke (see Figure 3b). However, the incidence of stroke in CCBs group was decreased by 7.84% [(5.1%-4.7%) ÷ 5.1% × 100%] compared with that of ACEIs group (see Table 1).

Stroke Events of CCBs vs Diuretics or/and β-adrenergic Blockers

Sixteen independent reports with 93,111 experimental subjects and 105,829 controls were included in this meta-analysis [3], [5], [17][19], [22][24], [27][34], which consisted of 6,505 stroke events (2795 in experimental group and 3710 in control group). The incidence of stroke in CCBs group was decreased by 14.28% [(3.5%-3%) ÷ 3.5% × 100%] compared with that of diuretics or/and β-adrenergic blockers group (see Table 1), and the CCBs were more effective (OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.83–0.92, p<1×10−5) than diuretics or/and β blockers in the prevention of stroke (see Figure 3c). Results of subgroups analyses indicated that the CCBs were more effective than β-adrenergic blockers alone (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.72–0.87, p<1×10−5), β-adrenergic blockers combined with diuretics (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.83–0.95, p = 7×10−5), but not diuretics alone (OR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.84–1.07, p = 0.39) in the prevention of stroke (see Figure 3c).

Discussion

This study demonstrates that the use of calcium channel blockers therapy, compared with placebo therapy (OR, 0.68), β-adrenergic blockers therapy (OR, 0.79), diuretics combined with β-adrenergic blockers therapy (OR, 0.89), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors therapy (OR, 0.92), and diuretics therapy (OR, 0.95), was associated with a lower incidence of stroke events in the patients with hypertension. In this combined study of different hypertension populations, the risk of stroke events reduction for patients receiving calcium channel blockers therapy was similar. Due to different sample size in different treatment groups, it is essential to use and interpret the above results with cautions. These findings present new evidence to support the idea that the CCBs reduced stroke more than placebo and β-adrenergic blockers but were not different than ACEIs and diuretics. Hypertension is only one of the major risk factors in the development of stroke, the number of stroke events remains high even though the antihypertensive agents are used extensively [39]. Therefore, other risk factors or/and the biological processes underlying the pathophysiology of stroke warrant further studies in the near future.

The findings of our work indicated that CCBs reduced stroke more than placebo and β-adrenergic blockers, but the detail molecular mechanisms are not well known and remain to be excavated in the future. By now, it can be explained in part by that CCBs can generate stronger antihypertensive effect (by dilating the blood vessels) than that of beta-blockers (by reducing the blood flow of cardiac output) or that of placebo (by confounders). These results reported here provide strong evidence linking controlling hypertension to a reduced risk of stroke. Meanwhile, this study has some limitations and caveats. First, as not all clinical data were available from each original report, other subclasses-stratified analyses could not be performed; the risk of bias assessment in this work could rob the credibility of results. Second, only studies reported in English or Chinese were included, which might be vulnerable to the bias of language and ethnicity. Third, the whole sample size in this study is sufficient for statistic purposes, but the sample size of each subgroup is relatively small and susceptible to false positive or negative results. Fourth, after the treatment of antihypertensive agents, the years of followed-up between studies varied greatly (from 1 to 5.5 years), which also could result in a bias. Finally, only four kinds of antihypertensive agents were tested in this report; addition of other drugs and withdrawals of treatment may also lead to an underestimation of the real differences in stroke risk between the previous reports. Further studies are required to investigate the association between other antihypertensive agents and stroke-risk, and to provide a better estimate the benefits of antihypertensive agents against stroke in the hypertension populations.

In conclusions, the present analysis shows that CCBs, ACEIs, diuretics, and β-adrenergic blockers can decline the incidence of stroke in the hypertension populations. Among them, CCBs reduced stroke more than placebo and β-adrenergic blockers, but were not different than ACEIs and diuretics. More head to head RCTs are warranted. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a thorough examination of the literature on the effect of first-line antihypertensive agents in the prevention of stroke, and provide a foundation of knowledge on which clinical and public health messaging deserves to be further discussed.

Supporting Information

Supplementary Information S1.

The quality assessment of evidence by GRADEprofiler.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057854.s001

(DOC)

Supplementary Information S2.

The risk of bias assessment by RevMan.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057854.s002

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

We also thank the anonymous reviewers who made comments valuable to the revision of this article.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: MSY. Performed the experiments: MSY GJC. Analyzed the data: MSY GJC. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MSY GJC. Wrote the paper: MSY GJC.

References

  1. 1. Hamilton M, Thompson EM, Wisniewski TK (1964) The role of blood-pressure control in preventing complications of hypertension. Lancet 1: 235–238. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(64)92344-x
  2. 2. Liu GT, Zeng GM, Hong X (2011) Long-term calcium channel blockers: The best choice of antihypertensive treatment for the Chinese hypertensive population. Zhongguo She Qu Yi Shi 13: 10–11 (in Chinese)..
  3. 3. National Intervention Cooperative Study in Elderly Hypertensives Study Group (1999) Randomized double-blind comparison of a calcium antagonist and a diuretic in elderly hypertensives. Hypertension 34: 1129–1133. doi: 10.1161/01.hyp.34.5.1129
  4. 4. Song YY, Yang YL (2011) Antihypertensive effect of levamlodipine besylate and enalapril in the patients with cerebrovascular disorder. Zhongguo Lao Nian Xue Za Zhi 31: 4039–4040 (in Chinese)..
  5. 5. Hansson L, Hedner T, Lund-Johansen P, Kjeldsen SE, Lindholm LH, et al. (2000) Randomised 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 356: 359–365. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02526-5
  6. 6. Hill AB (1966) Reflections on controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 25: 107–113.
  7. 7. Hill AB (1965) The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? Proc R Soc Med 58: 295–300.
  8. 8. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315: 629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
  9. 9. Colditz GA, Burdick E, Mosteller F (1995) Heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies: a commentary. Am J Epidemiol 142: 371–382.
  10. 10. Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21: 1539–1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186
  11. 11. Deeks JJ (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 323: 157–162. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7305.157
  12. 12. Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, Celis H, Arabidze GG, et al. (1997) Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet 350: 757–764. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(97)05381-6
  13. 13. Tatti P, Pahor M, Byington RP, Di Mauro P, Guarisco R, et al. (1998) Outcome results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in patients with hypertension and NIDDM. Diabetes Care 21: 597–603. doi: 10.2337/diacare.21.4.597
  14. 14. Lubsen J, Wagener G, Kirwan BA, de Brouwer S, Poole-Wilson PA (2005) ACTION (A Coronary disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine GITS) investigators.Effect of long-acting nifedipine on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with symptomatic stable angina and hypertension: the ACTION trial. J Hypertens 23: 641–648. doi: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000160223.94220.29
  15. 15. Liu L, Wang JG, Gong L, Liu G, Staessen JA (1998) Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China) Collaborative Group. J Hypertens 16: 1823–1829. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199816120-00016
  16. 16. Poole-Wilson PA, Lubsen J, Kirwan BA, van Dalen FJ, Wagener G, et al. (2004) Coronary disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system investigators. Effect of long-acting nifedipine on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with stable angina requiring treatment (ACTION trial): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 364: 849–857. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16980-8
  17. 17. Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E, O’Brien E, Dobson JE, et al. (2010) ASCOT-BPLA and MRC Trial Investigators. Effects of beta blockers and calcium-channel blockers on within-individual variability in blood pressure and risk of stroke. Lancet Neurol 9: 469–480. doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(10)70066-1
  18. 18. Ekbom T, Linjer E, Hedner T, Lanke J, De Faire U, et al. (2004) Cardiovascular events in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension. A subgroup analysis of treatment strategies in STOP-Hypertension-2. Blood Press 13: 137–141. doi: 10.1080/08037050410014944
  19. 19. Dahlöf B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers DG, et al. (2005) ASCOT Investigators. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 366: 895–906. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67185-1
  20. 20. Leenen FH, Nwachuku CE, Black HR, Cushman WC, Davis BR, et al. (2006) Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial Collaborative Research Group. Clinical events in high-risk hypertensive patients randomly assigned to calcium channel blocker versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial. Hypertension 48: 374–384. doi: 10.1161/01.hyp.0000231662.77359.de
  21. 21. Liu L, Zhang Y, Liu G, Li W, Zhang X, et al. (2005) FEVER Study Group. The Felodipine Event Reduction (FEVER) Study: a randomized long-term placebo-controlled trial in Chinese hypertensive patients. J Hypertens 23: 2157–2172. doi: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000194120.42722.ac
  22. 22. Zanchetti A, Bond MG, Hennig M, Neiss A, Mancia G, et al. (2002) European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis investigators. Calcium antagonist lacidipine slows down progression of asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis: principal results of the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA), a randomized, double-blind, long-term trial. Circulation 106: 2422–2427. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000039288.86470.dd
  23. 23. Turnbull F (2003) Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet 362: 1527–1535. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14739-3
  24. 24. Wang YZ, Chen W, Cui FQ (1998) Effect of calcium antagonists on the secondary prevention of essential hypertension. Zhongguo Man Xing Bing Yu Fang Yu Kong Zhi 6: 235–238 (in Chinese)..
  25. 25. Dens JA, Desmet WJ, Coussement P, De Scheerder IK, Kostopoulos K, et al. (2001) Usefulness of Nisoldipine for prevention of restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (results of the NICOLE study). Nisoldipine in Coronary artery disease in Leuven. Am J Cardiol 87: 28–33. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(00)01267-4
  26. 26. Gong L, Zhang W, Zhu Y, Zhu J, Kong D, et al. (1996) Shanghai trial of nifedipine in the elderly (STONE). J Hypertens 14: 1237–1245. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199610000-00013
  27. 27. ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group (2002) The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 288: 2981–2997. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.23.2981
  28. 28. Black HR, Elliott WJ, Grandits G, Grambsch P, Lucente T, et al. (2003) CONVINCE Research Group. Principal results of the Controlled Onset Verapamil Investigation of Cardiovascular End Points (CONVINCE) trial. JAMA 289: 2073–2082. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.16.2073
  29. 29. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Ekbom T, Dahlöf B, Lanke J, et al. (1999) Randomised trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and morbidity the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2 study. Lancet 354: 1751–1756. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)10327-1
  30. 30. Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A, de Leeuw PW, Mancia G, et al. (2000) 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 356: 366–372. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02527-7
  31. 31. Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, Marks RG, Kowey P, et al. (2003) INVEST Investigators. A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 290: 2805–2816. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.21.2805
  32. 32. Borhani NO, Mercuri M, Borhani PA, Buckalew VM, Canossa-Terris M, et al. (1996) Final outcome results of the Multicenter Isradipine Diuretic Atherosclerosis Study (MIDAS). A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 276: 785–791. doi: 10.1001/jama.276.10.785
  33. 33. Malacco E, Mancia G, Rappelli A, Menotti A, Zuccaro MS, et al. (2003) Shell Investigators. Treatment of isolated systolic hypertension: the SHELL study results. Blood Press 12: 160–167. doi: 10.1080/08037050310009545
  34. 34. Zanchetti A, Rosei EA, Dal Palù C, Leonetti G, Magnani B, et al. (1998) The Verapamil in Hypertension and Atherosclerosis Study (VHAS): results of long-term randomized treatment with either verapamil or chlorthalidone on carotid intima-media thickness. J Hypertens 16: 1667–1676. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199816110-00014
  35. 35. Estacio RO, Jeffers BW, Hiatt WR, Biggerstaff SL, Gifford N, et al. (1998) The effect of nisoldipine as compared with enalapril on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and hypertension. N Engl J Med 338: 645–652. doi: 10.1056/nejm199803053381003
  36. 36. Fukui T, Rahman M, Hayashi K, Takeda K, Higaki J, et al. (2003) CASE-J Study Group. Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) trial of cardiovascular events in high-risk hypertensive patients: rationale, design, and methods. Hypertens Res 26: 979–990. doi: 10.1291/hypres.26.979
  37. 37. Berl T, Hunsicker LG, Lewis JB, Pfeffer MA, Porush JG, et al. (2003) Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial. Collaborative Study Group. Cardiovascular outcomes in the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. Ann Intern Med 138: 542–549. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-7-200304010-00010
  38. 38. Tuomilehto J, Rastenyte D, Birkenhäger WH, Thijs L, Antikainen R, et al. (1999) Effects of calcium-channel blockade in older patients with diabetes and systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med 340: 677–684. doi: 10.1056/nejm199903043400902
  39. 39. Schrader J, Lüders S, Kulschewski A, Hammersen F, Plate K, et al. (2005) MOSES Study Group. Morbidity and Mortality after Stroke, Eprosartan Compared with Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention: principal results of a prospective randomized controlled study (MOSES). Stroke 36: 1218–1226. doi: 10.1161/01.str.0000166048.35740.a9
  40. 40. Donovan AL, Flexman AM, Gelb AW (2012) Blood pressure management in stroke. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 25: 516–522. doi: 10.1097/aco.0b013e32835721a5