Comparison of clinical efficacy and adverse effects between extended-release felodipine and atenolol in patients with mild and moderate essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND

Essential hypertension is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Atenolol, a cardio-selective beta-blocker, has been shown to be a safe and effective antihypertensive agent. The extended-release form of felodipine (felodipine ER), a vascular-selective dihydropyridine calcium blocker, is extensively used in Caucasians. However, its effectiveness, tolerability and adverse side-effect have not been assessed in Chinese populations.

METHODS

Sitting blood pressure (BP), heart rate, body weight, adverse reaction and serum biochemistry were assessed in 70 patients with mild-moderate essential hypertension treated either with felodipine ER (37 patients), or atenolol (33 patients) for 10 weeks. Each patient was prescribed 5 mg of felodipine ER or 50 mg of atenolol once daily and this daily dosage was doubled to twice daily if necessary.

RESULTS

Six patients who received felodipine ER and 3 who received atenolol withdrew from the treatment because of intolerable side effects. Within ten weeks, 81.1% of the patients had responded to a total daily dosage of 5-10 mg of felodipine ER and 81.8% to a daily dose of 50-100 mg of atenolol. By the end of treatment, the mean BP in the felodipine ER group had decreased from 176/104 mmHg at baseline to 145/85 mmHg, while the BP in the atenolol group had dropped from 173/103 mmHg to 145/84 mmHg (NS between the two groups). Heart rate declined in the atenolol group but did not change in patients who received felodipine ER. Overall, patients in the felodipine ER group had a higher rate of adverse reaction (70.3% vs. 39.4%; p < 0.001), and 16.2% of the patients in the felodipine ER group experienced symptoms of hypotension.

CONCLUSION

Equivalent doses of felodipine ER and atenolol are effective first-line monotherapeutic agents for the treatment of mild-moderate essential hypertension.