This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (52)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Norman M. Kaplan, MD; Julio Rosenstock, MD; Philip Raskin, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1987;147(6):1160-1162.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Publication of the report composed by The Working Group on Hypertension in Diabetes¹ comes at a propitious time, a time of rising concerns about the coexistence of the two diseases and increasing interest about newer therapies that may lessen their destructive impact. We believe that most of this report is factually correct and appropriately focused, so that it will have a major beneficial influence on clinical practice. The authors deserve our enthusiastic thanks. However, there are a few minor points and one more fundamental issue that we believe deserve, if not rebuttal, at least the presentation of a differing viewpoint. The minor points can be quickley covered; the fundamental issue as to the proper choices and sequences of antihypertensive drug therapy deserves more attention. In doing so, we iterate our general agreement with the substance of the report.

MINOR POINTS

In the fourth paragraph of the introduction, the sentence . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication March 18, 1987.

Reprint requests to the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75235-9030 (Dr Kaplan).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?