human
***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: CONTEXT Incidence of end-stage renal disease due to hypertension has increased in recent decades , but the optimal strategy for treatment of hypertension to prevent renal failure is unknown , especially among African Americans . OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitor ( ramipril ) , a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker ( amlodipine ) , and a beta-blocker ( metoprolol ) on hypertensive renal disease progression . DESIGN , SETTING , AND PARTICIPANTS Interim analysis of a r and omized , double-blind , 3 x 2 factorial trial conducted in 1094 African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease ( glomerular filtration rate [ GFR ] of 20 - 65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2 ) ) enrolled between February 1995 and September 1998 . This report compares the ramipril and amlodipine groups following discontinuation of the amlodipine intervention in September 2000 . INTERVENTIONS Participants were r and omly assigned to receive amlodipine , 5 to 10 mg/d ( n = 217 ) , ramipril , 2.5 to 10 mg/d ( n = 436 ) , or metoprolol , 50 to 200 mg/d ( n = 441 ) , with other agents added to achieve 1 of 2 blood pressure goals . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the rate of change in GFR ; the main secondary outcome was a composite index of the clinical end points of reduction in GFR of more than 50 % or 25 mL/min per 1.73 m(2 ) , end-stage renal disease , or death . RESULTS Among participants with a urinary protein to creatinine ratio of > 0.22 ( corresponding approximately to proteinuria of more than 300 mg/d ) , the ramipril group had a 36 % ( 2.02 [ SE , 0.74 ] mL/min per 1.73 m(2)/y ) slower mean decline in GFR over 3 years ( P = .006 ) and a 48 % reduced risk of the clinical end points vs the amlodipine group ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 20%-66 % ) . In the entire cohort , there was no significant difference in mean GFR decline from baseline to 3 years between treatment groups ( P = .38 ) . However , compared with the amlodipine group , after adjustment for baseline covariates the ramipril group had a 38 % reduced risk of clinical end points ( 95 % CI , 13%-56 % ) , a 36 % slower mean decline in GFR after 3 months ( P = .002 ) , and less proteinuria ( P<.001 ) . CONCLUSION Ramipril , compared with amlodipine , retards renal disease progression in patients with hypertensive renal disease and proteinuria and may offer benefit to patients without proteinuria CONTEXT Despite evidence of efficacy of antihypertensive agents in treating hypertensive patients , safety and efficacy of antihypertensive agents for coronary artery disease ( CAD ) have been discerned only from subgroup analyses in large trials . OBJECTIVE To compare mortality and morbidity outcomes in patients with hypertension and CAD treated with a calcium antagonist strategy ( CAS ) or a non-calcium antagonist strategy ( NCAS ) .  DESIGN , SETTING , AND PARTICIPANTS R and omized , open label , blinded end point study of 22 576 hypertensive CAD patients aged 50 years or older , which was conducted September 1997 to February 2003 at 862 sites in 14 countries . INTERVENTIONS Patients were r and omly assigned to either CAS ( verapamil sustained release ) or NCAS ( atenolol ) . Strategies specified dose and additional drug regimens . Tr and olapril and /or hydrochlorothiazide was administered to achieve blood pressure goals according to guidelines from the sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention , Detection , Evaluation , and Treatment of High Blood Pressure ( JNC VI ) of less than 140 mm Hg ( systolic ) and less than 90 mm Hg ( diastolic ) ; and less than 130 mm Hg ( systolic ) and less than 85 mm Hg ( diastolic ) if diabetes or renal impairment was present . Tr and olapril was also recommended for patients with heart failure , diabetes , or renal impairment . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary : first occurrence of death ( all cause ) , nonfatal myocardial infa rct ion , or nonfatal stroke ; other : cardiovascular death , angina , adverse experiences , hospitalizations , and blood pressure control at 24 months . RESULTS At 24 months , in the CAS group , 6391 patients ( 81.5 % ) were taking verapamil sustained release ; 4934 ( 62.9 % ) were taking tr and olapril ; and 3430 ( 43.7 % ) were taking hydrochlorothiazide . In the NCAS group , 6083 patients ( 77.5 % ) were taking atenolol ; 4733 ( 60.3 % ) were taking hydrochlorothiazide ; and 4113 ( 52.4 % ) were taking tr and olapril . After a follow-up of 61 835 patient-years ( mean , 2.7 years per patient ) , 2269 patients had a primary outcome event with no statistically significant difference between treatment strategies ( 9.93 % in CAS and 10.17 % in NCAS ; relative risk [ RR ] , 0.98 ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 0.90 - 1.06 ) . Two-year blood pressure control was similar between groups . The JNC VI blood pressure goals were achieved by 65.0 % ( systolic ) and 88.5 % ( diastolic ) of CAS and 64.0 % ( systolic ) and 88.1 % ( diastolic ) of NCAS patients . A total of 71.7 % of CAS and 70.7 % of NCAS patients achieved a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg . CONCLUSION The verapamil-tr and olapril-based strategy was as clinical ly effective as the atenolol-hydrochlorothiazide-based strategy in hypertensive CAD patients SUMMARY Background : Hypertension is one of the most important causes of cardiovascular disease , and treatment of hypertension leads to a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity . Although calcium channel blockers are regarded as an important part of the therapeutic armamentarium against cardiovascular diseases , and are among the most frequently prescribed antihypertensive medications , concern has been aroused about these drugs , particularly the short-acting dihydropyridine derivatives . However , the value of nifedipine GITS ( Adalat-Crono * ) , the long-acting dihydropyridine , is in need of being re-established . * Adalat-Crono is a registered tradename of Bayer AG , Leverkusen , Germany Objective : To compare the effectiveness , safety and tolerability of once-daily nifedipine and amlodipine treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension . Design : R and omised multicentre trial with an open comparison of treatments for 12 weeks , with a preceding placebo run-in period of 2 weeks ( patients on beta-blockers at the time of enrolment entered a m and atory 2-week wash-out period before being allowed in the placebo run-in period ; this wash-out period was one week for patients using any antihypertensive medication other than beta-blockers ) . Setting : Nine centres ( all university hospitals ) in Turkey . Patients : 155 patients with essential hypertension ( diastolicblood pressure 95 - 109 mmHg ) . Interventions : Initial treatment ( step 1 ) consisted of 30 mg nifedipine GITS ( n = 76 ; ( Adalat-Crono tablets ) , or 5 mg amlodipine ( n = 79 ; Norvasc * 5-mg tablets ) , either administered once daily , as a morning dose , or if the blood pressure was not below 140/90 mmHg , or the reduction in diastolic blood pressure was lower than 10 mmHg after a treatment period of 6 weeks , the dose was increased ( Step 2 ) to 60 mg once daily in the nifedipine group , or 10 mg once daily in the amlodipine group . Main efficacy parameter : Diastolic blood pressure at trough after 12 weeks of active compound therapy adjusted to baseline . Results : After 12 weeks of treatment , the mean diastolic blood pressure was 83.1 and 81.9 mmHg , in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups , respectively ( p = 0.436 ) . The mean decrease in systolic blood pressure ( 28.5 ± 11.9 and 28.2 ± 11.2 mmHg in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups , respectively ) and the mean decrease in diastolic blood pressure ( 16.4 ± 7.0 and 17.5 ± 6.9 mmHg in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups , respectively ) , as well as the responder rates ( 88.1 % and 92.1 % , in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups , respectively ) were comparable at the end of the study . No significant differences between groups were detected in the efficacy parameters assessed in this study . Both drugs were well tolerated . The overall incidence of adverse events was 7.9 % in the nifedipine group and 10.1 % in the amlodipine group . However , more patients discontinued treatment prematurely in the amlodipine group ( 13 patients ; 19.7 % ) , than in the nifedipine group ( four patients ; 5.6 % ) . Conclusions : The results of this study demonstrated that once-daily nifedipine in GITS formulation and amlodipine are comparably safe and effective treatment options in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertensi on NORDIL -- the Nordic Diltiazem Study (NORDIL)--is a prospect i ve , r and omized , open blinded-endpoint ( PROBE ) , multicenter , parallel-group morbidity/mortality outcome study in hypertensive patients design ed to compare an intervention strategy based on the calcium antagonist diltiazem with a strategy based on conventional antihypertensive drug treatment ( diuretics or beta-adrenergic blockers ) .  Patient recruitment was started in Norway and Sweden in September 1992 , and ended on December 15 , 1996 , when 10.896 male and female patients , aged 50 - 74 years , with essential hypertension had been r and omized . In this paper we describe the baseline data of the patient cohort and blood pressures achieved in the two treatment groups during the early part of the study . The patient cohort consists of 5294 males and 5602 females with a mean age of 59.6 and 60.3 years , respectively . Concomitant disorders and risk factors in the cohort are : smoking 22 % , ischemic heart disease 3.0 % , previous myocardial infa rct ion ( MI ) 2.0 % , previous stroke 1.5 % , diabetes mellitus 7.0 % , and renal impairment 0.3 % . There were no differences between the treatment groups in these respects . The blood pressure treatment goal is a target diastolic blood pressure of < or = 90 mmHg or a 10 % diastolic blood pressure reduction from the inclusion pressure . In the treatment group r and omized to a diltiazem-based treatment strategy , blood pressure was 174/106 mmHg at baseline and 156/90 mmHg after 12 months of follow-up on active treatment . In the group r and omized to a conventional treatment strategy , baseline blood pressure at r and omization was 173/106 mmHg and 153/90 mmHg after 12 months on active therapy . The NORDIL study will terminate on October 31 , 1999 and the final results should be available by mid-2000 Background —The Prospect i ve R and omized Enalapril Study Evaluating Regression of Ventricular Enlargement ( PRESERVE ) study was design ed to test whether enalapril achieves greater left ventricular ( LV ) mass reduction than does a nifedipine gastrointestinal treatment system by a prognostically meaningful degree on a population basis ( 10 g/m2 ) . Methods and Results —An ethnically diverse population of 303 men and women with essential hypertension and increased LV mass at screening echocardiography were enrolled at clinical centers on 4 continents and studied by echocardiography at baseline and after 6- and 12-month r and omized therapy . Clinical examination and blinded echocardiogram readings 48 weeks after study entry in an intention-to-treat analysis of 113 enalapril-treated and 122 nifedipine-treated patients revealed similar reductions in systolic/diastolic pressure ( −22/12 versus −21/13 mm Hg ) and LV mass index ( −15 versus −17g/ 
    Output:
    
agent
Diuretics are preferred first-line over CCBs to optimize reduction of cardiovascular events .
The review does not distinguish between CCBs , ACE inhibitors or ARBs , but does provide evidence supporting the use of CCBs over beta-blockers .
***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: CONTEXT Incidence of end-stage renal disease due to hypertension has increased in recent decades , but the optimal strategy for treatment of hypertension to prevent renal failure is unknown , especially among African Americans . OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme ( ACE ) inhibitor ( ramipril ) , a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker ( amlodipine ) , and a beta-blocker ( metoprolol ) on hypertensive renal disease progression . DESIGN , SETTING , AND PARTICIPANTS Interim analysis of a r and omized , double-blind , 3 x 2 factorial trial conducted in 1094 African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease ( glomerular filtration rate [ GFR ] of 20 - 65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2 ) ) enrolled between February 1995 and September 1998 . This report compares the ramipril and amlodipine groups following discontinuation of the amlodipine intervention in September 2000 . INTERVENTIONS Participants were r and omly assigned to receive amlodipine , 5 to 10 mg/d ( n = 217 ) , ramipril , 2.5 to 10 mg/d ( n = 436 ) , or metoprolol , 50 to 200 mg/d ( n = 441 ) , with other agents added to achieve 1 of 2 blood pressure goals . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the rate of change in GFR ; the main secondary outcome was a composite index of the clinical end points of reduction in GFR of more than 50 % or 25 mL/min per 1.73 m(2 ) , end-stage renal disease , or death . RESULTS Among participants with a urinary protein to creatinine ratio of > 0.22 ( corresponding approximately to proteinuria of more than 300 mg/d ) , the ramipril group had a 36 % ( 2.02 [ SE , 0.74 ] mL/min per 1.73 m(2)/y ) slower mean decline in GFR over 3 years ( P = .006 ) and a 48 % reduced risk of the clinical end points vs the amlodipine group ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 20%-66 % ) . In the entire cohort , there was no significant difference in mean GFR decline from baseline to 3 years between treatment groups ( P = .38 ) . However , compared with the amlodipine group , after adjustment for baseline covariates the ramipril group had a 38 % reduced risk of clinical end points ( 95 % CI , 13%-56 % ) , a 36 % slower mean decline in GFR after 3 months ( P = .002 ) , and less proteinuria ( P<.001 ) . CONCLUSION Ramipril , compared with amlodipine , retards renal disease progression in patients with hypertensive renal disease and proteinuria and may offer benefit to patients without proteinuria CONTEXT Despite evidence of efficacy of antihypertensive agents in treating hypertensive patients , safety and efficacy of antihypertensive agents for coronary artery disease ( CAD ) have been discerned only from subgroup analyses in large trials . OBJECTIVE To compare mortality and morbidity outcomes in patients with hypertension and CAD treated with a calcium antagonist strategy ( CAS ) or a non-calcium antagonist strategy ( NCAS ) .  DESIGN , SETTING , AND PARTICIPANTS R and omized , open label , blinded end point study of 22 576 hypertensive CAD patients aged 50 years or older , which was conducted September 1997 to February 2003 at 862 sites in 14 countries . INTERVENTIONS Patients were r and omly assigned to either CAS ( verapamil sustained release ) or NCAS ( atenolol ) . Strategies specified dose and additional drug regimens . Tr and olapril and /or hydrochlorothiazide was administered to achieve blood pressure goals according to guidelines from the sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention , Detection , Evaluation , and Treatment of High Blood Pressure ( JNC VI ) of less than 140 mm Hg ( systolic ) and less than 90 mm Hg ( diastolic ) ; and less than 130 mm Hg ( systolic ) and less than 85 mm Hg ( diastolic ) if diabetes or renal impairment was present . Tr and olapril was also recommended for patients with heart failure , diabetes , or renal impairment . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary : first occurrence of death ( all cause ) , nonfatal myocardial infa rct ion , or nonfatal stroke ; other : cardiovascular death , angina , adverse experiences , hospitalizations , and blood pressure control at 24 months . RESULTS At 24 months , in the CAS group , 6391 patients ( 81.5 % ) were taking verapamil sustained release ; 4934 ( 62.9 % ) were taking tr and olapril ; and 3430 ( 43.7 % ) were taking hydrochlorothiazide . In the NCAS group , 6083 patients ( 77.5 % ) were taking atenolol ; 4733 ( 60.3 % ) were taking hydrochlorothiazide ; and 4113 ( 52.4 % ) were taking tr and olapril . After a follow-up of 61 835 patient-years ( mean , 2.7 years per patient ) , 2269 patients had a primary outcome event with no statistically significant difference between treatment strategies ( 9.93 % in CAS and 10.17 % in NCAS ; relative risk [ RR ] , 0.98 ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 0.90 - 1.06 ) . Two-year blood pressure control was similar between groups . The JNC VI blood pressure goals were achieved by 65.0 % ( systolic ) and 88.5 % ( diastolic ) of CAS and 64.0 % ( systolic ) and 88.1 % ( diastolic ) of NCAS patients . A total of 71.7 % of CAS and 70.7 % of NCAS patients achieved a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg . CONCLUSION The verapamil-tr and olapril-based strategy was as clinical ly effective as the atenolol-hydrochlorothiazide-based strategy in hypertensive CAD patients SUMMARY Background : Hypertension is one of the most important causes of cardiovascular disease , and treatment of hypertension leads to a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity . Although calcium channel blockers are regarded as an important part of the therapeutic armamentarium against cardiovascular diseases , and are among the most frequently prescribed antihypertensive medications , concern has been aroused about these drugs , particularly the short-acting dihydropyridine derivatives . However , the value of nifedipine GITS ( Adalat-Crono * ) , the long-acting dihydropyridine , is in need of being re-established . * Adalat-Crono is a registered tradename of Bayer AG , Leverkusen , Germany Objective : To compare the effectiveness , safety and tolerability of once-daily nifedipine and amlodipine treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension . Design : R and omised multicentre trial with an open comparison of treatments for 12 weeks , with a preceding placebo run-in period of 2 weeks ( patients on beta-blockers at the time of enrolment entered a m and atory 2-week wash-out period before being allowed in the placebo run-in period ; this wash-out period was one week for patients using any antihypertensive medication other than beta-blockers ) . Setting : Nine centres ( all university hospitals ) in Turkey . Patients : 155 patients with essential hypertension ( diastolicblood pressure 95 - 109 mmHg ) . Interventions : Initial treatment ( step 1 ) consisted of 30 mg nifedipine GITS ( n = 76 ; ( Adalat-Crono tablets ) , or 5 mg amlodipine ( n = 79 ; Norvasc * 5-mg tablets ) , either administered once daily , as a morning dose , or if the blood pressure was not below 140/90 mmHg , or the reduction in diastolic blood pressure was lower than 10 mmHg after a treatment period of 6 weeks , the dose was increased ( Step 2 ) to 60 mg once daily in the nifedipine group , or 10 mg once daily in the amlodipine group . Main efficacy parameter : Diastolic blood pressure at trough after 12 weeks of active compound therapy adjusted to baseline . Results : After 12 weeks of treatment , the mean diastolic blood pressure was 83.1 and 81.9 mmHg , in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups , respectively ( p = 0.436 ) . The mean decrease in systolic blood pressure ( 28.5 ± 11.9 and 28.2 ± 11.2 mmHg in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups , respectively ) and the mean decrease in diastolic blood pressure ( 16.4 ± 7.0 and 17.5 ± 6.9 mmHg in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups , respectively ) , as well as the responder rates ( 88.1 % and 92.1 % , in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups , respectively ) were comparable at the end of the study . No significant differences between groups were detected in the efficacy parameters assessed in this study . Both drugs were well tolerated . The overall incidence of adverse events was 7.9 % in the nifedipine group and 10.1 % in the amlodipine group . However , more patients discontinued treatment prematurely in the amlodipine group ( 13 patients ; 19.7 % ) , than in the nifedipine group ( four patients ; 5.6 % ) . Conclusions : The results of this study demonstrated that once-daily nifedipine in GITS formulation and amlodipine are comparably safe and effective treatment options in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertensi on NORDIL -- the Nordic Diltiazem Study (NORDIL)--is a prospect i ve , r and omized , open blinded-endpoint ( PROBE ) , multicenter , parallel-group morbidity/mortality outcome study in hypertensive patients design ed to compare an intervention strategy based on the calcium antagonist diltiazem with a strategy based on conventional antihypertensive drug treatment ( diuretics or beta-adrenergic blockers ) .  Patient recruitment was started in Norway and Sweden in September 1992 , and ended on December 15 , 1996 , when 10.896 male and female patients , aged 50 - 74 years , with essential hypertension had been r and omized . In this paper we describe the baseline data of the patient cohort and blood pressures achieved in the two treatment groups during the early part of the study . The patient cohort consists of 5294 males and 5602 females with a mean age of 59.6 and 60.3 years , respectively . Concomitant disorders and risk factors in the cohort are : smoking 22 % , ischemic heart disease 3.0 % , previous myocardial infa rct ion ( MI ) 2.0 % , previous stroke 1.5 % , diabetes mellitus 7.0 % , and renal impairment 0.3 % . There were no differences between the treatment groups in these respects . The blood pressure treatment goal is a target diastolic blood pressure of < or = 90 mmHg or a 10 % diastolic blood pressure reduction from the inclusion pressure . In the treatment group r and omized to a diltiazem-based treatment strategy , blood pressure was 174/106 mmHg at baseline and 156/90 mmHg after 12 months of follow-up on active treatment . In the group r and omized to a conventional treatment strategy , baseline blood pressure at r and omization was 173/106 mmHg and 153/90 mmHg after 12 months on active therapy . The NORDIL study will terminate on October 31 , 1999 and the final results should be available by mid-2000 Background —The Prospect i ve R and omized Enalapril Study Evaluating Regression of Ventricular Enlargement ( PRESERVE ) study was design ed to test whether enalapril achieves greater left ventricular ( LV ) mass reduction than does a nifedipine gastrointestinal treatment system by a prognostically meaningful degree on a population basis ( 10 g/m2 ) . Methods and Results —An ethnically diverse population of 303 men and women with essential hypertension and increased LV mass at screening echocardiography were enrolled at clinical centers on 4 continents and studied by echocardiography at baseline and after 6- and 12-month r and omized therapy . Clinical examination and blinded echocardiogram readings 48 weeks after study entry in an intention-to-treat analysis of 113 enalapril-treated and 122 nifedipine-treated patients revealed similar reductions in systolic/diastolic pressure ( −22/12 versus −21/13 mm Hg ) and LV mass index ( −15 versus −17g/ 
    Output:
    