Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group Correspondence to: Professor R Holman, UK
Prospective Diabetes Study Group, Diabetes Research Laboratories,
Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE
Objective: To determine whether tight control of
blood pressure with either a
blocker or an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor has a specific advantage or disadvantage in preventing the macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes.
Design: Randomised controlled trial comparing an
angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (captopril) with a
blocker (atenolol) in patients with type 2 diabetes aiming at a blood pressure
of <150/<85 mm Hg.
Setting: 20 hospital based clinics in England,
Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
Subjects: 1148 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes (mean age 56 years, mean blood pressure 160/94 mm Hg). Of the
758 patients allocated to tight control of blood pressure, 400 were
allocated to captopril and 358 to atenolol. 390 patients were allocated
to less tight control of blood pressure.
Main outcome measures: Predefined clinical end
points, fatal and non-fatal, related to diabetes, death related to
diabetes, and all cause mortality. Surrogate measures of microvascular
and macrovascular disease included urinary albumin excretion and
retinopathy assessed by retinal photography.
Results: Captopril and atenolol were equally
effective in reducing blood pressure to a mean of 144/83 mm Hg and
143/81 mm Hg respectively, with a similar proportion of patients
(27% and 31%) requiring three or more antihypertensive treatments.
More patients in the captopril group than the atenolol group took the
allocated treatment: at their last clinic visit, 78% of those
allocated captopril and 65% of those allocated atenolol were taking
the drug (P<0.0001). Captopril and atenolol were equally effective in
reducing the risk of macrovascular end points. Similar proportions of
patients in the two groups showed deterioration in retinopathy by two
grades after nine years (31% in the captopril group and 37% in the
atenolol group) and developed clinical grade albuminuria
300 mg/l
(5% and 9%). The proportion of patients with hypoglycaemic attacks
was not different between groups, but mean weight gain in the atenolol
group was greater (3.4 kg v 1.6 kg).
Conclusion: Blood pressure lowering with captopril or
atenolol was similarly effective in reducing the incidence of diabetic
complications. This study provided no evidence that either drug has any
specific beneficial or deleterious effect, suggesting that blood
pressure reduction in itself may be more important than the treatment
used.
Key messages
blocker (atenolol) gave similar
reductions in blood pressure in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes
© BMJ 1998
and concern
Read all Rapid Responses