***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Abstract —To investigate the impact of treatment on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity , we assessed outcomes in patients with hypertension and diabetes who received co-amilozide or nifedipine in the International Nifedipine GITS Study : Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension . Participants had to be 55 to 80 years of age , with hypertension ( ≥150/95 or ≥160 mm Hg ) and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor . Patients received 30 mg nifedipine once daily or co-amilozide ( 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide and 2.5 mg amiloride ) daily . Doses were doubled if target blood pressures ( < 140/90 mm Hg ) were not achieved . Primary ( composite of cardiovascular death , myocardial infa rct ion , heart failure , and stroke ) and secondary outcomes ( composite of primary outcomes , including all-cause mortality and death from vascular and nonvascular causes ) were assessed by means of intent-to-treat analyses . There was no significant difference in the incidence of primary outcomes between nifedipine-treated and  co-amilozide – treated patients with diabetes at baseline ( n=1302 ) ( 8.3 % versus 8.4 % ; relative risk , 0.99 , 95 % CI , 0.69 to 1.42;P = 1.00 ) . A significant benefit for nifedipine-treated patients was seen for the composite secondary outcome ( 14.2 % versus 18.7 % ; relative risk , 0.76 , 95 % CI , 0.59 to 0.97;P = 0.03 ) . Among patients without diabetes at baseline ( n=5019 ) , there was a significant difference in the incidence of new diabetes ( nifedipine 4.3 % versus co-amilozide 5.6 % , P = 0.023 ) . Nifedipine GITS once daily is as effective as  diuretic therapy in reducing cardiovascular complications in hypertensive diabetics . Nifedipine-treated patients were also less likely to have diabetes or have secondary events ( a composite of all-cause mortality , death from a vascular cause , and death from a nonvascular cause ) than co-amilozide recipients . Our results suggest that nifedipine could be considered as first-line therapy for hypertensive diabetics BACKGROUND The most suitable antihypertensive drug to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with hypertension and diabetes is unclear . In prespecified analyses , we compared the effects of losartan and atenolol on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in diabetic patients . METHODS As part of the LIFE study , in a double-masked , r and omised , parallel-group trial , we assigned a group of 1195 patients with diabetes , hypertension , and signs of left-ventricular hypertrophy ( LVH ) on electrocardiograms losartan-based or atenolol-based treatment . Mean age of patients was 67 years ( SD 7 ) and mean blood pressure 177/96 mm Hg ( 14/10 ) after placebo run-in . We followed up patients for at least 4 years ( mean 4.7 years [ 1.1 ] ) . We used Cox regression analysis with baseline Framingham risk score and electrocardiogram-LVH as covariates to compare the effects of the drugs on the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality ( cardiovascular death , stroke , or myocardial infa rct ion ) . FINDINGS Mean blood pressure fell to 146/79 mm Hg ( 17/11 ) in losartan patients and 148/79 mm Hg ( 19/11 ) in atenolol patients . The primary endpoint occurred in 103 patients assigned losartan ( n=586 ) and 139 assigned atenolol ( n=609 ) ; relative risk 0.76 ( 95 % CI 0.58-.98 ) , p=0.031 . 38 and 61 patients in the losartan and atenolol groups , respectively , died from cardiovascular disease ; 0.63 ( 0.42 - 0.95 ) , p=0.028 . Mortality from all causes was 63 and 104 in losartan and atenolol groups , respectively ; 0.61 ( 0.45 - 0.84 ) , p=0.002 . INTERPRETATION Losartan was more effective than atenolol in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as well as mortality from all causes in patients with hypertension , diabetes , and LVH . Losartan seems to have benefits beyond blood pressure reduction The C and esartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan Trial was design ed to compare the long-term effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker c and esartan and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine on the incidence of cardiovascular events , represented as a composite of sudden death and cerebrovascular , cardiac , renal , and vascular events in high-risk Japanese hypertensive patients . We conducted a prospect i ve , r and omized , open-label study with blinded assessment of the end point in 4728 Japanese hypertensive patients ( mean age : 63.8 years ; mean body mass index : 24.6 kg/m2 ) . Patients were followed for an average of 3.2 years .  Blood pressure was well controlled with both treatment-based regimens ( systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure : 136.1/77.3 mm Hg for c and esartan-based regimens and 134.4/76.7 mm Hg for amlodipine-based regimens after 3 years ) . Primary cardiovascular events occurred in 134 patients with both the c and esartan- and amlodipine-based regimens . The 2 treatment-based regimens produced no significant differences in cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in the high-risk Japanese hypertensive patients ( hazard ratio : 1.01 ; 95 % CI : 0.79 to 1.28 ; P=0.969 ) . In each primary end point category , there was no significant difference between the 2 treatment-based regimens . New-onset diabetes occurred in fewer patients taking c and esartan ( 8.7/1000 person-years ) than in those taking amlodipine ( 13.6/1000 person-years ) , which result ed in a 36 % relative risk reduction ( hazard ratio : 0.64 ; 95 % CI : 0.43 to 0.97 ; P=0.033 ) . We disclosed that c and esartan-based and amlodipine-based regimens produced no statistical differences in terms of the primary cardiovascular end point , whereas c and esartan prevented new-onset diabetes more effectively than amlodipine BACKGROUND Treatment of hypertension with diuretics , beta-blockers , or both leads to improved outcomes . It has been postulated that agents that inhibit the renin-angiotensin system confer benefit beyond the reduction of blood pressure alone . We compared the outcomes in older subjects with hypertension who were treated with angiotensin-converting-enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitors with the outcomes in those treated with diuretic agents . METHODS We conducted a prospect i ve , r and omized , open-label study with blinded assessment of end points in 6083 subjects with hypertension who were 65 to 84 years of age and received health care at 1594 family practice s. Subjects were followed for a median of 4.1 years , and the total numbers of cardiovascular events in the two treatment groups were compared with the use of multivariate proportional-hazards models . RESULTS At base line , the treatment groups were well matched in terms of age , sex , and blood pressure . By the end of the study , blood pressure had decreased to a similar extent in both groups ( a decrease of 26/12 mm Hg ) . There were 695 cardiovascular events or deaths from any cause in the ACE-inhibitor group ( 56.1 per 1000 patient-years ) and 736 cardiovascular events or deaths from any cause in the diuretic group ( 59.8 per 1000 patient-years ; the hazard ratio for a cardiovascular event or death with ACE-inhibitor treatment was 0.89 [ 95 percent confidence interval , 0.79 to 1.00 ] ; P=0.05 ) . Among male subjects , the hazard ratio was 0.83 ( 95 percent confidence interval , 0.71 to 0.97 ; P=0.02 ) ; among female subjects , the hazard ratio was 1.00 ( 95 percent confidence interval , 0.83 to 1.21 ; P=0.98 ) ; the P value for the interaction between sex and treatment-group assignment was 0.15 . The rates of nonfatal cardiovascular events and myocardial infa rct ions decreased with ACE-inhibitor treatment , whereas a similar number of strokes occurred in each group ( although there were more fatal strokes in the ACE-inhibitor group ) . CONCLUSIONS Initiation of antihypertensive treatment involving ACE inhibitors in older subjects , particularly men , appears to lead to better outcomes than treatment with diuretic agents , despite similar reductions of blood pressure Although the benefits of antihypertensive treatment in " young " elderly ( under 70 years ) hypertensive patients are well established , the value of treatment in older patients ( 70 - 84 years ) is less clear . The Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension ( STOP-Hypertension ) was a prospect i ve , r and omised , double-blind , intervention study set up to compare the effects of active antihypertensive therapy ( three beta-blockers and one diuretic ) and placebo on the frequency of fatal and non-fatal stroke and myocardial infa rct ion and other cardiovascular death in hypertensive Swedish men and women aged 70 - 84 years . We recruited 1627 patients at 116 health centres throughout Sweden , who were willing to participate , and who met the entry criteria of three separate recordings during a 1-month placebo run-in period of systolic blood pressure between 180 and 230 mm Hg with a diastolic pressure of at least 90 mm Hg , or a diastolic pressure between 105 and 120 mm Hg irrespective of the systolic pressure . The total duration of the study was 65 months and the average time in the study was 25 months . 812 patients were r and omly allocated active treatment and 815 placebo . The mean difference in supine blood pressure between the active treatment and placebo groups at the last follow-up before an endpoint , death , or study termination was 19.5/8.1 mm Hg . Compared with placebo , active treatment significantly reduced the number of primary endpoints ( 94 vs 58 ; p = 0.0031 ) and stroke morbidity and mortality ( 53 vs 29 ; p = 0.0081 ) . Although we did not set out to study an effect on total mortality , we also noted a significantly reduced number of deaths in the active treatment group ( 63 vs 36 ; p = 0.0079 ) . The benefits of treatment were discernible up to age 84 years . We conclude that antihypertensive treatment in hypertensive men and women aged 70 - 84 confers highly significant and clinical ly relevant reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as well as in total mortality Although diuretics are recommended for the treatment of hypertension , decreased diuretic use and increased calcium antagonist use necessitate a comparison of the efficacy of these drugs in preventing cardiovascular events .  Patients > /=60 years of age with systolic blood pressure of 160 to 220 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure < 115 mm Hg were enrolled . Patients were r and omly assigned to 20 mg of sustained-release nicardipine hydrochloride twice daily or 2 mg of trichlormethiazide once daily by the double-dummy method and followed up for 5 years . A total of 414 patients were analyzed : 204 in the nicardipine group and 210 in the diuretic group .  Blood pressure  at entry was 172/94 mm Hg and 173/93 mm Hg , respectively , and decreased to 147/81 mm Hg and 147/79 mm Hg , respectively . Cardiovascular morbidity rates per 1000 persons per year were similar in the nicardipine and diuretic groups ( 27.8 and 26.8 , respectively ; P=0.923 ) . The sex- and age-adjusted risk ratio for the nicardipine group was 0.973 ( 95 % confidence interval , 0.514 to 1.839 , P=0.932 ) . The calcium antagonist and diuretic groups had a similarly decreased rate of cardiovascular events Background The risks and benefits of treating hypertension in individuals older than 80 years are uncertain . A meta- analysis has suggested that a reduction in stroke events of 36 % may have to be balanced against a 14 % increase in total mortality . Objectives To report the results of the pilot study of the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial ( HYVET ) , which is in progress to address these issues . Methods 
    Output:
    
Conclusion Based on the available evidence , there seems to be little or no difference between commonly used blood pressure lowering medications for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease .
Beta-blockers ( atenolol ) and alpha-blockers may not be first-choice drugs as they were the only drug-classes that were not significantly superior to any other , for any outcomes .