Periodically in the history of hypertensive therapy there have been minor storms that have significantly affected the utilization of entire classes of agents. The first storm struck with the case-control studies suggesting that reserpine was associated with an increased risk of carcinoma of the breast, a claim subsequently disproved by a number of other studies. The second storm was initiated by a subanalysis of the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT), from which it was inferred that, in a subset of hypertensive patients, diuretic treatment may have been harmful rather than beneficial. Despite this claim and other speculations, diuretics - especially at low doses - remain a gold standard of antihypertensive therapy. Recently, a third storm has developed in the field of antihypertensive therapy: a case-control study report and a non-randomized cohort study have questioned the use of calcium channel blockers in hypertension. The case-control study suffers from the limitations inherent in this study design, which often gives rise to conflicts and contradiction. In fact, another case-control study published in 1995 reached exactly the opposite conclusions and claimed that c
📖 افتح في inklap 🔗 DOI 📮 اطلب بحثاً