Combination drug therapy with calcium-channel blockers in the treatment of systemic hypertension

Morning versus evening administration of a calcium channel blocker in combination therapy for essential hypertension by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring analysis

Patients with moderate to severe hypertension may need more than two antihypertensive drugs in combination to achieve ideal blood pressure (BP) control. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of administering the antihypertensive agents either all together in the morning or separately with two agents in the morning and one calcium channel blocker (CCB) in the evening. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was performed among 15 patients (mean, 59 years) with moderate to severe essential hypertension. All patients received at least 3 antihypertensive drugs for ideal BP control. Two treatment regimens were given to each patient: Regimen 1: All antihypertensive agents were given once a day in the morning; Regimen 2: All antihypertensive agents were given in the morning, except the CCB which was given at 4:00 pm. After receiving regimen 1 for 4 weeks, each patient underwent 24-hour ABPM to analyze the BP control. After the first ABPM, each patient was switched to regimen 2. After 4 weeks of treatment with regimen 2, each patient underwent the second ABPM measurement. The pretreatment mean systolic and diastolic BP were 179.6 +/- 21.7 and 107.4 +/- 19.9 mmHg, respectively. Between the two regimens, there was no significant difference in the mean 24-hour BP (126.1 +/- 5.8/73.3 +/- 3.8 versus 130.2 +/- 6.2/75.1 +/- 4.7 mmHg), daytime BP (128.2 +/- 6.5/75.3 +/- 3.8 versus 132.4 +/- 5.8/77.2 +/- 4.4 mmHg), nighttime BP (125.2 +/- 4.9/72.4 +/- 3.3 versus 130.9 +/- 6.2/73.8 +/- 4.1 mmHg), and 24-hour heart rate (65.1 +/- 3.8 versus 64.2 +/- 3.4 bpm). The circadian BP and heart rate profiles were almost identical between regimen 1 and regimen 2. We conclude that in patients with moderate to severe hypertension treated with at least 3 antihypertensive agents, administering a CCB simultaneously with other antihypertensive agents in the morning or separately in the evening did not affect the 24-hour BP control.

Rationale for fixed-dose combinations in the treatment of hypertension: the cycle repeats

Single-drug therapy remains the preferred way to begin treatment of hypertension, although in many patients this is unable to bring blood pressure (BP) to goal levels. Single-drug therapy, even when maximally titrated, is at best only modestly effective in normalising BP in Stage-I or II hypertension, which represents the majority of the hypertensive population. It is increasingly appreciated that the elusive goal of a 'normal' BP is achieved only if multi-drug therapy is employed. This is especially so when considered in the context of today's lower BP goals. The options for multi-drug therapy are quite simple: either fixed-dose combination therapy or drugs added sequentially one after another to then arrive at an effective multi-drug regimen. Advocates exist for both approaches. A considerable legacy, dating to the 1950's, exists for fixed-dose combination therapies. The rationale to this approach has remained constant. Fixed-dose combination therapy successfully reduces BP because two drugs, each typically working at a separate site, block different effector pathways. In addition, the second drug of such two-drug combinations may check counter-regulatory system activity triggered by the other. For example, a diuretic and beta-blocker combination may find the diuretic correcting the salt-and-water retention which occasionally accompanies beta-blocker therapy. The pattern of adverse effects also differs with fixed-dose combination therapy, in part, because less drug is generally being given. In addition, one component of a fixed-dose combination therapy can effectively counterbalance the tendency of the other to produce adverse effects. For example, the peripheral oedema, that accompanies calcium channel antagonist therapy, occurs less frequently when an ACE inhibitor is co-administered. ACE inhibitors improve, if not eliminate, the peripheral oedema associated with calcium channel antagonists because of their proven ability to cause venodilation. In addition, diuretic therapy-induced volume contraction may generate a state of secondary hyperaldosteronism and thereby electrolyte abnormalities such as hypokalaemia and/or hypomagnesaemia. In many cases, the co-administration of either an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker with a diuretic corrects the aforementioned electrolyte disturbances. Fixed-dose combination therapy has a proven record of reducing BP. This form of treatment has been available for close to a half-century. Over that period of time, many physicians have taken advantage of this therapeutic approach even when academic opinion was less than charitable to this concept. Academic opinion is rarely immutable and occasionally irrelevant to prescription practice. Prescription practice is driven by many considerations including ease of use, cost and tolerance of a therapy. Most importantly, the therapeutic pathway taken should successfully result in goal BP being reached in a large number of those treated. Unfortunately, despite the simplicity of the concept behind fixed-dose combination therapy, its success will ultimately rest on cost. If made truly cost-competitive, it will gain an increasing share of the hypertensive market. If not, market forces will relegate it to a secondary role for hypertension treatment.

Once-daily treatment of patients with hypertension: a placebo-controlled study of amlodipine and benazepril vs amlodipine or benazepril alone

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of once-daily therapy with amlodipine 5 mg/benazepril 10 mg vs amlodipine 5 mg, benazepril 10 mg, and placebo.

DESIGN

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre trial.

SETTING

Twenty-two clinical centres, including private practice groups and academic research clinics.

PATIENTS

A total of 530 patients between 21 and 80 years of age with essential hypertension were screened for the study, and 454 were randomised to treatment with amlodipine 5 mg/benazepril 10 mg, amlodipine 5 mg, benazepril 10 mg, or placebo for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Amlodipine 5 mg/benazepril 10 mg produced greater reductions from baseline in sitting diastolic blood pressure than amlodipine 5 mg (P < 0.03), benazepril 10 mg (P < 0.001), and placebo (P < 0.001). The response rate in the amlodipine 5-mg/benazepril 10-mg treatment group (66.4%) was better than that observed in the amlodipine 5-mg (50.0% P < 0.02), benazepril 10-mg (38.3% P < 0.001), and placebo (24.4% P < 0.001) groups. There was no significant difference in heart rate among the four groups. The incidence of oedema in the amlodipine 5-mg/benazepril 10-mg (1.7%) group was somewhat less than that in the amlodipine 5-mg (4.5%) group.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapy with amlodipine 5 mg/benazepril 10 mg was well tolerated and was superior to amlodipine 5 mg, benazepril 10 mg, and placebo in reducing sitting diastolic blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension.

New evidence for the spasm-of-resistance-vessel concept of ischemic diseases

The spasm of resistance vessel (S-RV) concept of ischemic diseases avers that S-RV representing vascular autoregulatory dysfunction directly induces symptoms in ischemic diseases. The most important ischemic diseases, ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke, generally are not attributed to S-RV, and new evidence will be provided in this communication that S-RV induces IHD and stroke. Hypertension and the ischemic disorders of migraine and Raynaud's disease have been attributed to S-RV and to vascular dysregulation, and this information was used to help structure the study. It was found that these disorders are closely associated with IHD and stroke, and this is consistent with S-RV and vascular dysregulation as the mechanism for IHD and stroke. Also, it was found that multiple risk factors for IHD foster S-RV and are risk factors for hypertension, migraine, Raynaud's disease, and stroke, and this supports S-RV as the mechanism for IHD and stroke.

Combined therapy with benazepril and amlodipine in the treatment of hypertension inadequately controlled by an ACE inhibitor alone

In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of benazepril, 10 mg, and amlodipine, 2.5 or 5 mg once daily, compared with benazepril, 10 mg, monotherapy in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor monotherapy. After a 2-week placebo and 4-week single-blind benazepril, 10 mg once daily, run-in period, 448 patients, 213 men and 235 women, aged 24-73 years (mean, 55 years), with mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or =95 and < or =120 mm Hg at the end of the benazepril run-in period, were randomized to receive one of the following treatments once daily for 8 weeks: (a) benazepril, 10 mg, plus placebo (BZ10); (b) benazepril, 10 mg, plus amlodipine, 2.5 mg (BZ10/AML2.5); or (c) benazepril, 10 mg, plus amlodipine, 5 mg (BZ10/AML5). Before the patients were admitted to the trial, at the end of the placebo run-in and the benazepril run-in period and at the end of weeks 4 and 8 of the treatment period, sitting and standing blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and body weight were measured 22-26 h after the intake of the trial medication. Both BZ10/AML2.5 and BZ10/AML5 combinations showed better antihypertensive activity than did BZ10 monotherapy at the terminal visit as demonstrated by (a) the 24-h postdosing sitting and standing systolic BP (SBP) and DBP values, which were statistically lower with combination therapy than with BZ10; (b) the success rate, which was statistically higher with both the combinations (69.2% in the BZ10/AML2.5 and 65.8% in the BZ10/AML5 group) compared with the BZ10 group (40.5%). The tolerability was good in the three treatment groups. No significant abnormal laboratory data were detected. There was no difference in efficacy and safety/tolerability between the BZ10/AML2.5 and BZ10/AML5 groups.

Comparison of amlodipine and benazepril monotherapy to amlodipine plus benazepril in patients with systemic hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. The Benazepril/Amlodipine Study Group

A single-blind, run-in, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled comparison trial was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of low-dose amlodipine 2.5 mg daily, low-dose benazepril 10 mg daily, and the combination of the two drugs at the same doses used once daily in patients (n = 401) with mild to moderate (stages I and II) systemic hypertension. Both monotherapy regimens were shown to significantly reduce both systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared with baseline placebo values, and the combination regimen was shown to be superior in lowering systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with either of the monotherapy regimens. The combination therapy also resulted in a greater percentage of patients having successful clinical response in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure. The amlodipine and benazepril regimen was also shown to be associated with a similar incidence of adverse experiences as the active monotherapy or placebo regimens, although the group given combination therapy appeared to have a lower incidence of edema than the group given amlodipine alone. Low-dose amlodipine (2.5 mg) plus benazepril (10 mg) provides greater blood-pressure-lowering efficacy than either monotherapy, and has an excellent safety profile.

Amlodipine versus atenolol in essential hypertension

The efficacy and safety of amlodipine (2.5-10 mg) once daily was compared with atenolol (50-100 mg) once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study. A total of 125 patients were randomly allocated at the end of a 4-week run-in placebo period to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with amlodipine (n = 41), atenolol (n = 43), or placebo (n = 41). The placebo group had small mean changes in supine and standing blood pressure compared with baseline. The mean blood pressure changes from baseline 24 hours postdose in the amlodipine group (mean daily dose 8.8 mg) were -12.8/-10.1 mm Hg for supine blood pressure and -11.5/-9.8 mm Hg for standing blood pressure (p < 0.001 compared with placebo), and for the atenolol group (mean daily dose 83.7 mg) the changes were -11.3/-11.7 mm Hg for supine blood pressure and -13.3/-12.3 mm Hg for standing blood pressure (p < 0.001 compared with placebo). There were no statistically significant blood pressure differences between active treatments. The responder rates for amlodipine, atenolol, and placebo were 61.1, 64.9, and 11.1%, respectively. The blood pressure values taken over the 24-hour period at final visit revealed that amlodipine and atenolol maintained the supine blood pressure < or = 140/90 mm Hg throughout the period of observation; the corresponding time-effect curve for the placebo group was clearly in the hypertensive range. Both amlodipine and atenolol were well tolerated.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)