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 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 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 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 The present study in hypertensive men ( 40 - 64 years old ) with untreated diastolic blood pressure above 100 mm Hg was aim ed at investigating whether metoprolol ( n = 1,609 ) given as initial treatment would lower the risk for coronary events ( sudden death and myocardial infa rct ion ) more effectively than thiazide diuretics ( n=1,625 ) . A substantial part of this study was the metoprolol arm of the Heart Attack Primary Prevention in Hypertension ( HAPPHY ) study . The HAPPHY study was a pooling of the effect of different /J-blockers , mainly metoprolol and atenolol , in which no favorable effect in relative risk was observed for atenolol as compared with diuretics . In the present study , 255 patients suffered definite coronary events during follow-up ; 25 % of these events were fatal , 39 % were acute myocardial infa rct ions , and 36 % were silent myocardial infa rct ions . The risk for coronary events was significantly lower in patients on metoprolol  than in patients on diuretics  ( 111 versus 144 cases , p=0.001 , corresponding to 143 versus 18.8 cases/1,000 patient years and a relative risk of 0.76 at the end of the trial ; 95 % confidence interval 0.58 - 0.98 ) . This difference in risk has potentially important implication s for clinical practice because of the large number of hypertensive patients who are at increased risk for coronary events . Because a placebo group , for ethical reasons , could not be included , relative risk can only be expressed in relation to diuretics . There was no difference between the two treatment groups in baseline characteristics , blood pressure during follow-up , or stroke rates . Thus , the difference in risk for coronary events is probably mediated via mechanisms other than blood pressure control . However , present data might suggest that different /3-blockers may have different efficacy in preventing coronary events . The reasons for this possibility are as yet unknown . ( Hypertension 1991:17 : Introduction . Aliskiren is the first in a new class of direct renin inhibitors to be approved for the treatment of hypertension . Patients and methods . In this double-blind , multicentre trial , 694 patients with hypertension ( mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [ BP ] ≥ 95 and < 110 mmHg ) were r and omised to once-daily aliskiren 150 mg ( n=231 ) , atenolol 50 
    Output:
    
agent
Atenolol  was the beta‐blocker most used .
Current evidence suggests that initiating treatment of hypertension with beta‐blockers leads to modest CVD reductions and little or no effects on mortality .
These beta‐blocker effects are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs .
***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 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 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 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 The present study in hypertensive men ( 40 - 64 years old ) with untreated diastolic blood pressure above 100 mm Hg was aim ed at investigating whether metoprolol ( n = 1,609 ) given as initial treatment would lower the risk for coronary events ( sudden death and myocardial infa rct ion ) more effectively than thiazide diuretics ( n=1,625 ) . A substantial part of this study was the metoprolol arm of the Heart Attack Primary Prevention in Hypertension ( HAPPHY ) study . The HAPPHY study was a pooling of the effect of different /J-blockers , mainly metoprolol and atenolol , in which no favorable effect in relative risk was observed for atenolol as compared with diuretics . In the present study , 255 patients suffered definite coronary events during follow-up ; 25 % of these events were fatal , 39 % were acute myocardial infa rct ions , and 36 % were silent myocardial infa rct ions . The risk for coronary events was significantly lower in patients on metoprolol  than in patients on diuretics  ( 111 versus 144 cases , p=0.001 , corresponding to 143 versus 18.8 cases/1,000 patient years and a relative risk of 0.76 at the end of the trial ; 95 % confidence interval 0.58 - 0.98 ) . This difference in risk has potentially important implication s for clinical practice because of the large number of hypertensive patients who are at increased risk for coronary events . Because a placebo group , for ethical reasons , could not be included , relative risk can only be expressed in relation to diuretics . There was no difference between the two treatment groups in baseline characteristics , blood pressure during follow-up , or stroke rates . Thus , the difference in risk for coronary events is probably mediated via mechanisms other than blood pressure control . However , present data might suggest that different /3-blockers may have different efficacy in preventing coronary events . The reasons for this possibility are as yet unknown . ( Hypertension 1991:17 : Introduction . Aliskiren is the first in a new class of direct renin inhibitors to be approved for the treatment of hypertension . Patients and methods . In this double-blind , multicentre trial , 694 patients with hypertension ( mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [ BP ] ≥ 95 and < 110 mmHg ) were r and omised to once-daily aliskiren 150 mg ( n=231 ) , atenolol 50 
    Output:
    