Propranolol or Hydrochlorothiazide Alone for the Initial Treatment of Hypertension IV. Effect on Plasma Glucose and Glucose Tolerance VETERANS ADMINISTRATION COOPERATIVE STUDY GROUP ON ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS SUMMARY To evaluate the short-term and long-term effectiveness of propranolol and hydro- chlorothiazide monotherapy for hypertension, 683 hypertensive men were randomized to treatment with either propranolol or hydrochlorothiazide. Both drugs increased the average fasting plasma glucose level by approximately 5 mg/dl after 10 weeks (p < 0.001) and 1 year (p < 0.001) of treatment, but the elevation persisted only in the propranolol-treated group 1 month after discontinuing the year- long treatment (p < 0.01). A subset of 191 patients had 2-hour glucose tolerance tests. Hydrochloro- thiazide increased the average 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test result by 18.0 mg/dl after 10 weeks (p < 0.001), an increase significantly higher than that induced by propranolol (p < 0.012). After 1 year of treatment, however, propranolol also increased the average 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test result (p < 0.05) and there was no significant difference between drugs. The hyperglycemic effects were dose-related, which suggests that both drugs should be administered at their lowest effective dosage. The clinical importance of the persistent fasting plasma glucose elevation in propranolol- treated patients 1 month after discontinuing treatment is unknown. (Hypertension 7: 1008-1016, 1985) Key Worps ° hyperglycemia - T has been known for well over 20 years that thiazide diuretics elevate blood glucose levels and impair glucose tolerance in a substantial pro- portion of patients treated with therapeutic doses for hypertension.':? These effects have been noted during both short-term and long-term treatment? * and repre- sent a complicating factor in managing hypertensive patients with borderline or frank diabetes.° In addition, on the suspicion that the vascular lesions of diabetes might be related to the blood glucose level,®* it has been suggested that treatment with thiazide diuretics could enhance the vasculopathic potential of hyperten- sion by increasing blood glucose levels.* B-Blockers have been suggested as an alternative to thiazides at the first level of the stepped-care scheme. With respect to this consideration, the development of diabetes has been mentioned as one of the specific disadvantages of thiazides as compared to 8-blockers.° From the Cooperative Studies Program, Medical Research Ser- vice of the Veterans Administration, Washington, DC. The article was written by Drs. Elf A. Ramirez and Frederick N. Talmers. Supported by a grant from Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., New York, New York. Address for reprints: Eli A. Ramirez, M.D., F.A.C.P., Veterans Administration Medical Center, G.P.O., Box 4867, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936. Received July 30, 1984; accepted May 29, 1985. side effects « 1008 hypertensive therapy The main purpose of the present study was to evaluate the short-term and long-term effectiveness of propran- olol (PROP) as compared to hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in the monotherapy of hypertension. Herein, we report on that aspect of the study that compares the effects of both drugs on fasting plasma glucose levels and glucose tolerance. ‘Materials and Methods The design of this study has been described pre- viously.'° '' Briefly, this was a seven-hospital, cooper- ative, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Hyper- tensive men, aged 21 to 65 years, were admitted to the trial after appropriate informed consent if their sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was in the range of 95 to 114 mm Hg after a minimum of 2 weeks without antihypertensive therapy. Subjects were excluded if they had a severe complication of hypertension, sec- ondary hypertension, a serious systemic disease, or a contraindication to treatment with PROP or HCTZ. Patients with diabetes mellitus were excluded if the diabetes was unstable, was of preadult onset, or re- quired treatment with insulin. No selection was at- tempted or made on the basis of family or personal history of diabetes, dietary intake, or other treatment for diabetes. HYPERGLYCEMIA WITH PROPRANOLOL AND HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE 1009 There was a prerandomization, single-blind placebo period of 4 weeks to obtain baseline data and to deter- mine eligibility, defined as an average DBP in the range of 95 to 114 mm Hg on two consecutive visits and pill counts of the placebo within a designated ac- ceptable range. Eligible patients were randomly as- signed in a double-blind fashion to receive either PROP or HCTZ to start the titration dose finding peri- od (phase A). At a maximum of seven clinic visits 1 or 2 weeks apart during a 10-week period, daily doses were titrated from 80 mg to 160, 240, 320, 480, or 640 mg for PROP and from 50 mg to 100 or 200 mg for HCTZ. Both drugs were given in equal, twice-daily divided doses. The titration was continued until either a DBP below 90 mm Hg was achieved or there were side effects. No specific dietary restrictions were pre- scribed. To enter the long-term treatment period (phase B) of the study, the patient had to achieve either a DBP below 90 mm Hg on two consecutive phase A visits or an average DBP during the last two consecu- tive visits of phase A below 100 mm Hg and at least 6 mm Hg below the baseline average. The long-term treatment phase (phase B) consisted of 12 visits at 4-week intervals for a total of 48 weeks of continuous treatment. Additional adjustments to dosage were permitted during the long-term treatment phase according to DBP, compliance, and side effects. Subjects could be terminated for severe side effects or for lack of desig- nated antihypertensive effectiveness within specified periods. After the long-term treatment phase, there were two weekly visits for dose tapering and two fur- ther weekly visits for the final placebo period. Laboratory studies including the standard urinaly- sis, complete blood count, and blood chemistry tests using automated analyzers were done just before be- ginning the dosage titration phase, after its completion (phase A), at the end of the long-term treatment phase (phase B), and at the end of the 2-week final placebo phase. Two of the seven participating hospitals (Allen Park, MI; San Juan, Puerto Rico) volunteered to per- form 2-hour oral glucose tolerance tests (2-hour OGTT) at randomization, at the end of phase A, and at the end of phase B. Throughout the study, the labora- tories at all the participating hospitals satisfied the quality control requirements of the American College of Pathologists. The patients who had a 2-hour OGTT received a 300-g carbohydrate diet for 3 days before the test and were instructed to take only water after 1900 hours on the night before the test. The next morning, a fasting blood sample was drawn and, if it was less than 150 mg/dl, the subject was given 7 fl oz of Glucola contain- ing 75 g of glucose. A repeat plasma glucose sample was drawn 2 hours later. True glucose values were determined using the glucose oxidase method. This study was designed by a committee that includ- ed biostatisticians, some of whom participated in the analysis of the data and in the monitoring of the study. Paired and unpaired Student’s ¢ tests, Pearson r corre- lations, chi-square tests, and analyses of covariance were used to assess statistically significant differences (defined as p < 0.05) between groups of data. Results Of the 906 subjects entering the study, 683 (75.4%) were randomized; 340 to PROP and 343 to HCTZ. The most common causes for prerandomization dropout were noncompliance and blood pressure above or below the randomization criteria. Only four subjects were taking oral hypoglycemic agents at randomiza- tion; one was assigned to PROP and three to HCTZ. Blacks constituted 57.6% of the patients randomized to PROP and 56.0% of those randomized to HCT7Z; the difference was not significant. Some clinics had a higher percentage of blacks than others, but the racial composition between the drug groups was not signifi- cantly different within any of the clinics. Phase A was completed by 610 subjects; 298 re- ceived PROP and 312 received HCTZ. More subjects receiving HCTZ (128) than PROP (102) completed phase A before the full 10 weeks was over, because they achieved earlier a DBP less than 90 mm Hg on two consecutive visits; therefore, the average duration of phase A was shorter for HCTZ-treated than for PROP-treated subjects. Of the 610 subjects who com- pleted phase A, only 491 entered the study early enough to be eligible for long-range treatment. Of this number, 394 met the criteria for entering the long-term treatment period (phase B) of the study; 182 received PROP and 212 received HCTZ. Phase B was complet- ed by 125 subjects receiving PROP and by 177 receiv- ing HCTZ. The baseline characteristics of all randomized pa- tients are shown in Table 1; there were no significant differences between the two groups. The baseline var- iables were also studied for the subgroups of subjects that completed phase A and phase B. There were no significant differences between these subgroups either, except for a lower baseline serum calcium level in the PROP-treated subgroup that completed phase B (p = 0.037). Reasons for terminations were classified as either administrative (e.g., failure to return to clinic, stop- ping treatment) or medical (e.g., inadequate DBP con- trol, side effects). The administrative terminations were equally divided between both groups, but the medical terminations, particularly inadequate DBP control, were more frequent in the PROP-treated group. The total number of terminations in the PROP- treated subjects compared with the HCTZ-treated sub- jects were 42 to 31 during phase A and 57 to 35 during phase B. This aspect of the study has been described in previous communications.!° |! No subject was terminated for a diabetes-related reason. Only one subject was started on a regimen of oral hypoglycemic agents de novo during the study. As the study progressed, the total number of subjects re- ceiving oral hypoglycemic agents was very small: one at the end of phase A, two at phase B, and one at the final placebo phase. All had been randomized to HCTZ. 1010 HYPERTENSION VoL 7, No 6, NovemMBer-DECEMBER 1985 TaBLe 1. Comparison of Baseline Characteristics of the Patient Populations Randomized to Propranoioi and Hydrochlorothiazide at All Haspitals Propranolol Hydrochlorothiazide No. of No. of Variable subjects Mean + sp subjects Mean + sp Age (yr) 340 49.6+9.8 343 49.829.9 Black (%) 340 57.6 343 56.0 Weight (1b) 340 191.5433.4 343 189.4 + 30.9 Diastolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 340 101.6+4.6 343 101.324.5 Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 340 146.0+14.4 343 146.5415.8 Creatinine (mg/dl) 339 1.18 +0.20 339 1.16+0.21 Potassium (mEq/L) 339 4.2+0.39 342 4.3+0.68 Uric acid (mg/dl) 335 6.4£1,31 342 6.5+1.45 Cholesterol (mg/dl) 335 221.12%47.4 336 224.3+47.0 Triglycerides (mg/dl) 336 165.8 + 140.6 338 184.1 + 197.8 Calcium (me/dl) 257 9.5+0.50 259 9.4+0.90 Fasting plasma glucose (mg/dl) 337 100.0 + 22.7 343 100.4 + 25.2 There were no significant differences between groups. The average dose of medication found necessary to control blood pressure in each group at the end of phase A was 268 mg/day for PROP and 93 mg/day for HCTZ. During phase B, dosage increases to maintain blood pressure control were necessary in 37.6% of PROP-treated and in 20.9% of HCTZ-treated patients; dosage decreases were necessary in 0.8% of PROP- treated and in 4% of HCTZ-treated patients. At the two participating hospitals that performed the 2-hour OGTT, 96 subjects were randomized to PROP and 95 to HCTZ. Whites outnumbered blacks 53 to 43 in the group randomized to PROP and 56 to 39 in the group randomized to HCTZ. Eight-eight subjects re- ceiving PROP and 89 receiving HCTZ completed phase A, and 38 subjects receiving PROP and 49 re- ceiving HCTZ completed phase B. The baseline characteristics were studied at the two hospitals for the randomized groups and for the sub- TABLE 2. Tolerance Tests groups that completed phase A and phase B. There were no significant differences between them. Howev- er, there were several statistically significant differ- ences in the baseline characteristics between the sub- jects at the two hospitals (Table 2). The subjects at Allen Park were significantly younger and heavier and had significantly higher average serum cholesterol and serum calcium levels than those at San Juan. On the other hand, the San Juan subjects had significantly higher systolic blood pressure and DBP, serum triglyc- eride levels, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels, and 2-hour OGTT results. Fasting Plasma Glucose Levels Table 3 shows the average FPG level at all the hospi- tals for all phases and the differences between each phase and the baseline value of the same group of patients. For all subjects, the FPG level increased sig- Significant* Baseline Characteristic Differences at the Two Hospitals that Performed 2-Hour Oral Glucose Allen Park, Michigan San Juan, Puerta Rico No. of No. of Variable subjects Mean + sp subjects Mean + sp Pp Age (yr) 91 49.05 10.2 100 $2.347.7 0.014 Black (%) 73.6 15.0 Weight (Ib) 91 190.1 + 30.7 100 178.04 25.8 0.003 Diastolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 91 102.4+5.2 100 103.84 3.6 0.047 Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 91 139.64 12.0 100 149.1411.5 0.000 Cholesterol (mg/dl) ot 216.7439.7 97 203.8 + 48.4 0.048 Triglycerides (mg/dl) 91 157.5 + 123.5 100 240.6 + 192.5 0.000 Calcium (mg/dl) 91 9.6+6.5 100 9.4+0.5 0.029 Fasting plasma glucose (mg/dl) 90 93.7 417.5 100 107.8 + 27.4 0.000 2-hour OGTT (mg/dl) 88 105.3 + 39.0 95 141.5465.1 0.000 OGTT = oral glucose tolerance test. *p < 0.05. HYPERGLYCEMIA WITH PROPRANOLOL AND HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE 1011 TapLe 3. Average Fasting Plasma Glucose Values at All Hospitals for the Various Phases All patients Propranolol HCTZ No. of No. of No. of p (between Variable subjects Mean + sp subjects Mean + sp subjects Mean + sD drugs) Phase A $34 104.04 21.8 259 102.34 20.2 275 105.6 23.1 NS A baseline 532 4.0+20.3* 257 4.0+17.1* 275 4.0422.9% NS Phase B 294 106.2 + 26.6 120 105.94 21.8 174 106.4 + 29.5 NS A baseline 293 5.4425.1* 119 6.4+ 18.4* 174 4.7+28.9¢ NS A from phase A 256 1.6+20.0 103 3.1+17.9 153 0.6+21.4 NS Final placebo 265 102.34 23.2 110 105.9+ 22.9 155 99.72 23.2 0.032 A baseline 264 0.7+23.7 109 4.6+ 18.31 155 —2.0+ 26.5 <0.017 Change represents the difference between a phase and the respective group baseline average. HCTZ = hydrochlorothiazide,; Ns = not significant (p > 0.05). *p < 0.001, tp < 0.01, tp < 0.05, within groups. nificantly from the respective group baseline, in both FPG< 115 mg/dl FPG > 133 mg/dl phase A and phase B (p < 0.001). Each drug group by itself also showed significant FPG level increases from its baseline in both phases. The average increases in wy +H FPG level were relatively small: 4.0 mg/dl for each = 45 drug in phase A, and 4.7 mg/dl for PROP and 6.4 z= A =) mg/dl for HCTZ in phase B. When the drug groups 5 0 0 a Be were compared with each other, neither the average Bos LU values in each phase nor the changes between phases a | CJ PROPRANOLOL were significantly different. However, compared with ~10 P77] HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE their respective group baseline, the FPG level re- mained significantly elevated in the 109 PROP-treated subjects who completed the final placebo period, whereas the FPG level in the HCTZ-treated group re- turned to its baseline. The difference was also signifi- cant between drugs, between both the levels (p = 0.032) and the changes from baseline (p < 0.017). The number of subjects who crossed diabetes diag- nostic limits was studied according to accepted stan- dards that define the FPG level as definitely normal below 115 mg/dl and definitely abnormal above 139 mg/dl.’ The percentage change within each of these categories in those subjects who completed each phase is shown in Figure 1. Of 119 subjects taking PROP who completed phase B, there were 12% fewer with a definitely normal FPG level than at baseline (p = 0.016). There were no other statistically significant changes in the percentages. Two-Hour Glucose Tolerance Test Table 4 shows the average 2-hour OGTT results for the two hospitals at randomization and at each phase. The differences between each phase and the baseline average of the respective group of subjects are also shown. For ail subjects, there were significant average increases from baseline to phase A (p = 0.008), from baseline to phase B (p = 0.002), and from phase A to phase B (p = 0.003). Values in HCTZ-treated subjects increased significantly from baseline both to phase A (p = 0.001) and to phase B (p = 0.024), while values in PROP-treated subjects increased significantly only from baseline to phase B (p = 0.014). Analyses of between-drug differences indicated that the HCTZ- treated subjects exhibited a significantly higher level N 267 275 119174 109 1554 257 275 119.174 109 165 FINAL FINAL PHASE =A Bpiaceao «SA 8 PLACEBO CHANGES FROM BASELINE WITHIN GROUPS: * =p<.02 Figure 1. Changes in the prevalence of fasting plasma glu- cose (FPG) levels less than 115 mg/dl and more than 139 mgidl in those subjects completing phase A, phase B, and final place- bo phase. N = number of subjects in each group. Data are fram all seven hospitals. (p = 0.007) and a greater change from baseline (p = 0.012) than the PROP-treated subjects during phase A. There were no significant differences between drugs during phase B. The number of patients who crossed diabetes diag- nostic limits was studied according to accepted stan- dards that define the 2-hour OGTT as definitely normal below 140 mg/dl and definitely abnormal above 199 mg/dl.!? The percentage change in each of these cate- gories in those subjects who completed each phase is shown in Figure 2. In 80 HCTZ-treated subjects com- pleting phase A, there were 21% fewer with a definite- ly normal (p = 0.0001), and 11% more with a defi- nitely abnormal (p = 0.027), 2-hour OGTT result than at baseline. Both differences were also significant be- tween drugs (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.039 respective- ly). During phase B the only significant difference was in the 45 HCTZ-treated subjects: 22% fewer subjects had a definitely normal 2-hour OGTT result than at baseline (p = 0.016). However, this difference was not significant between drugs. 1012 HYPERTENSION Voit 7, No 6, NovEMBER-DECEMBER 1985 TaBLe 4. Average 2-Hour Oral Glucose Tolerance Test Values at Randomization and the Various Phases, Combined for the Two Hospitals All patients Propranolol HCTZ No. of No. of No. of p (between Variable subjects Mean + sp subjects Mean + sp subjects Mean + sp drugs) Randomization 209 123.02 55.6 90 119.54 48.3 93 128.5+64.3 NS Phase A 156 131.44 58.5 75 118.5+45.4 81 143.2+66.6 0.008 A baseline 154 9.5+43.7* 74 0.4 + 36.2 80 18.04 48.47 0.012 Phase B 80 155.8+90.9 35 147.7+79.2 45 162.1499.4 NS A baseline 79 22.5+61.9* 34 18.14 40.84 45 25.94 74,3 NS A from phase A 75 13.7+54.8* 32 18.4+59.9 43 10.8+51.3 NS Change represents the difference between a phase and the respective group baseline average. HCTZ = hydrochlorothiazide; ns = not significant (p > 0.05). *p < 0.01, tp < 0.001, tp < 0.05, within groups. 2 HA OGTT < 140 mg/dl 2 HR OGTT >» 199 mg/dl EPG 2HR OGTT. “15 PROP. KCTZ PROP. HOTZ r . 40 | ww e+ FA 4 20 a 0 2 0 wy +15 = 5 Ld io = a Y S - + a 4 A = » Cea A I 4 10 (CJpropranovo. | tT t | + | 6 N 8039 69 56 135 139-91 79 BH 1222 a5 77 PJHYOROCHUOROTHIAZIDE PHASES A R A OB A 8B A B a CPFRENES AETAEEN DOSARE | PEL AGE RANGE PROP. HCTZ. + : DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DOSAGE LEVELS ce 00S G ain 0 mas 40 4H mone MiGH DOSAGE RANGE N 74 g =p < 00 7 480-540 100-200 PHASES A 8 A 3 ta Many other factors besides insulin release can be potentially affect- ed by B-blockade in the complex interplay of gluco- neogenesis, liver and muscle glycogenolysis, and peripheral glucose utilization that controls glucose homeostasis.** 7” Both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia have been reported less frequently with the cardioselective than with the nonselective blockers.” ?”** This finding Vo. 7, No 6, NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 1985 would be expected since 8,-adrenergic receptors rather than £,-adrenergic receptors are predominantly in- volved in carbohydrate metabolism. However, there is some question whether these differences are sharply defined in the therapeutic dosage range for hyperten- sion.”’ This observation is consistent with the concept that there is a differential quality in the distribution of receptors and that cardioselectivity is a relative rather than an absolute property. It is also possible that the observed differences may be predicated on factors oth- er than cardioselectivity.” The persistence of an elevated FPG level for 1 month after discontinuation of PROP in contrast with the simultaneous return to baseline in HCTZ-treated subjects is not explainable in this study by detectable differences between the two treatment populations. It is of interest that this response is opposite to the blood pressure lowering effect; in part II of this series we reported that the blood pressure rose more and faster with PROP than with HCTZ after treatment was dis- continued.'' The finding suggests some degree of re- setting of glucose homeostasis as a result of long-term B-blocker administration. One implication is that the hyperglycemia associated with PROP may be more important in terms of long-term repercussions than that induced by HCTZ, but it is clear that this determina- tion requires longer term observations than those per- formed in the present study. The plasma glucose level changes here reported are greater and appeared earlier than in other, similar stud- ies. In a series of 34 patients treated with thiazides, there were no significant changes in glucose tolerance during the first year of therapy; a significant deteriora- tion was seen only 6 years later.*° However, the aver- age daily dose of HCTZ received by 13 subjects in the study was only 73 mg compared with the 93 mg re- ceived by our subjects. In another trial of 99 hyperten- sive men who completed 6 years of treatment after randomization to either PROP or bendroflumethiazide, there was no effect on FPG level nor on glucose toler- ance.*' However, the maximum daily dose was 320 mg for PROP and 5 mg for bendroflumethiazide, which is considerably less than the maximum 640 mg for PROP and 200 mg for HCTZ used in the present study. In light of the relationship between dosage and hypergly- cemia demonstrated in our subjects, the difference in findings is best explained by the difference in dosage. An interesting question for further exploration is whether the separate hyperglycemic effects of these drugs may be additive even in low dosage under the circumstances of long-term administration. It seems quite definite that hyperglycemia and glu- cose intolerance appear earlier with HCTZ than with PROP, but that the latter also has a similar effect in time. For this reason, and in consideration of the long- term requirement of antihypertensive treatment, it ap- pears reasonable to consider both drugs mildly diabet- ogenic for the purposes of antihypertensive therapy. However, it seems most doubtful in light of available evidence that this mild degree of hyperglycemia will HYPERGLYCEMIA WITH PROPRANOLOL AND HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE have any significant bearing on the vasculopathy of hypertension,® although it might well be of conse- quence in the management of an individual patient. Whether the persistence of the PROP-induced hyper- glycemic effect after discontinuing long-term admin- istration is clinically important deserves additional investigation. These findings do not support a preference for either HCTZ or PROP for the treatment of hypertension on the basis of their diabetogenic tendency. They do sug- gest that both of these drugs should be administered at their lowest effective dose and then combined if neces- sary with other agents to obtain appropriate antihyper- tensive effectiveness. Acknowledgment Thanks are due to Mrs. Antonia Morales, who prepared the manuscript. Participants Cochairmen: Edward D. Freis, M.D. (Washington, D.C.), and Barry J. Materson, M.D. (Miami, Florida). Principal Investigators: Frederick N. Talmers, M.D. (Allen Park, Michigan); William C. Cushman, M.D. (Jackson, Mississippi); Harold Schnaper, M.D. (Birmingham, Ala- bama); Thomas J. White, M.D. (Memphis, Tennessee); Khin Mae Hla, M.D., and Orlando Fernandez, M.D. (Mi- ami, Florida); Eli A. Ramfrez, M.D. (San Juan, Puerto Rico); Ibrahim Khatri, M.D. (Washington, D.C.). Nurses or Physician Assistants: Barbara Gregory, R.N., and Madeline Metcalfe, R.N. (Washington, D.C.); Julie Pawelak, R.N. (Allen Park, Michigan); Pauline Derring- ton, R.N. (Jackson, Mississippi); Susan Reece, R.N., and Kristina Grossman, R.N. (Memphis, Tennessee); Mary H. Smith, R.N., and Eileen Haran, R.N. (Miami, Florida); Maria H. Natal, R.N. (San Juan, Puerto Rico); Donald Quinn, P.A. (Birmingham, Alabama). Biostatistical Center: Bor Ming Ou, M.S., Samuel G. Lindle, Ph.D., Domenic Reda, M.S. Special Renin Laboratory: Walter Flamenbaum, M.D., and Robert Hamburger, M.D. Central Research Pharmacist: Larry Young, R.Ph. Operations Committee: Gilbert McMahon, M.D., Ray Gifford, M.D., and C. Morton Hawkins, Ph.D. Consultants: James R. Oster, M.D., Ezra Lamdin, M.D. (Ayerst Laboratories), Shig Ochi, Ph.D., and J. R. Thomas, M.D. Hines Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center Hu- man Rights Committee: Jennie McKoy; Patrick Moran; Mary Davidson, Ph.D.; Kenneth Elmer; Rev. Martin Feld- bush. Cooperative Studies Program Central Administration: James A. Hagans, M.D., Ph.D., and Ping Huang Ph.D. (Veter- ans Administration Central Office, Washington, D.C.); Kenneth James, Ph.D., and William G. Henderson, Ph.D. (Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Hines, Illinois); Mike Sather, R.Ph., M.S. (Cooperative Studies Program Research Pharmacy Coordinating Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico). 10. 13. 14. 15. 20. 21. 22. 23, 24. 25. 1015 References . Finnerty FA. Special problems in therapy of hypertension. In: Moyer JH, ed. Hypertension: first Hahnemann Symposium on Hypertensive Disease. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1959:653 . Freis E. Special problems in therapy of hypertension. In: Moyer JH, ed. Hypertension: first Hahnemann Symposium on Hypertensive Disease. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1959:653 . Wolff FW, Parmley WW, White K, Ikum R. Drug-induced diabetes: diabetogenic activity of long-term administration of benzothiadiazines. JAMA 1963;185:568—-574 . Breckenridge A, Welborn TA, Dollery CT, Fraser R. Glucose tolerance in hypertensive patients on long-term diuretic ther- apy. Lancet 1967;1:61—68 . Goldner MG, Zarowitz H, Agkum S. Hyperglycemia and gly- cosuria due to thiazide derivatives administered in diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1960;262:403-405 . Rifkin H. Why control diabetes? Med Clin North Am 1978; 62:747-752 . West KM. Epidemiology of diabetes and its vascular lesions. New York: Elsevier North-Holland, 1978;368—-374 . Siperstein MD. Diabetic microangiopathy and the control of blood glucose. N Engl J Med 1983;309:1577—1579 . Laragh JH. Modern system for treating high blood pressure based on renin profiling and vasconstriction—volume analysis: a primary role for beta blocking drugs such as propranolol. Am J Med 1976;61:797-810 Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group on Antihy- pertensive Agents. Comparison of propranolol and hydrochlo- rothiazide for the initial treatment of hypertension: I. Results of short-term titration with emphasis on racial differences in re- sponse. JAMA 1982;248:1996—2003 . Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group on Antihy- pertensive Agents. Comparison of propranolol and hydrochlor- othiazide for the initial treatment of hypertension: II. Results of long-term therapy. JAMA 1982;248:2004—201 1 . National Diabetes Data Group. New classification and diagno- sis of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes 1979;28:1039-1057 Conn JW. Hypertension: the potassium ion and impaired car- bohydrate tolerance. N Eng! J Med 1965;273:1135-1143 Helderman JH, Elahi D, Andersen DK, et al. Prevention of the glucose intolerance of thiazide diuretics by maintenance of body potassium. Diabetes 1983;32:106-111 Rowe JD, Tobin JD, Rosa RM, Andres R. Effect of experi- mental potassium deficiency on glucose and insulin metabo- lism. Metabolism 1980;29:498-502 - Kotler MN, Berman L, Rubenstein AH. Hypoglycemia precip- itated by propranolol. Lancet 1966;2:1389-1390 . Gold LA, Merimee TJ, Misbin RI. Propranolol and hypoglyce- mia: the effects of beta-adrenergic blockade on glucose and alanine levels during fasting. J Clin Pharmacol 1980;20:50-58 . Hesse B, Pedersen JT. Hypoglycemia after propranolol in chil- dren. Acta Med Scand 1973;193:551-552 . Abramson EA, Arky RA, Woeber KA. Effects of propranolol on the hormonal and metabolic responses to insulin-induced hypoglycemia. Lancet 1966;2:1386—1388 Lawrence AM, Hagen TC. Propranolol-associated hypoglyce- mia [Letter]. N Engl J Med 1983;309:1327-1328 Waal-Manning HJ. Metabolic effects of §-adrenoceptor blockers. Drugs 1976;11(suppl 1):121-126 Mariani M, Loubatieres A, Sorel A, Savi L. Etude “in vivo” des activateurs on bloqueurs béta-adrénergiques sur l’insulino sécrétion: différenciation pharmacologique du type de récep- teur béta impliqué. Diabetes 1971;19:129-133 Massara F, Strumia E, Cammani F, Molinatti GM. Depressed tolbutamide-induced insulin response in subjects treated with propranolol. Diabetologia 1971;7:287—289 Robertson RP, Porte D Jr. The glucose receptor: a defective mechanism in diabetes mellitus distinct from the beta adrener- gic receptor. J Clin Invest 1973;52:870-876 Groop L, Totterman KJ, Harno K, Gordin A. Influence of beta blocking drugs on glucose metabolism in patients with non— insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Acta Med Scand 1982; 211:7-12 1016 26. 27. 28. Cerasi E, Luft R, Efendic S. Effect of adrenergic blocking agents on insulin response to glucose infusion in man. Acta Endocrinol 1972;69:335-346 Wright AD, Barber SG, Kendall MJ, Poole PH. Beta-adreno- ceptor blocking drugs and blood sugar control in diabetes mel- litus. Br Med J 1979;1:159-161 Ekberg G, Hansson BG. Glucose tolerance and insulin release in hypertensive patients treated with the cardioselective B-receptor blocking agent metoprolol. Acta Med Scand 1977, 202:393-397 HYPERTENSION 29. 30. 31. VoL 7, No 6, NoveMBer-DECEMBER 1985 Day JL, Simpson N, Metcalfe J, Page RL. Metabolic conse- quences of atenolol and propranolol in treatment of essential hypertension. Br Med J 1979;1:77-80 Murphy MB, Lewis PJ, Kohner E, Schumer B, Dollery CT. Glucose intolerance in hypertensive patients treated with di- uretics: a fourteen-year follow-up. Lancet 1982;2:1293- 1295 Berglund G, Anderson O. Beta blockers or diuretics in hyper- tension? A six-year follow-up of blood pressure and metabolic side effects. Lancet 1981;1:744—747