Evolving strategies for the use of combination therapy in hypertension

Hypertension therapy using fixed-dose polypills that contain at least three medications

Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy may provide a solution to treatment gaps by overcoming reasons for therapeutic inertia. To synthesise and report on available evidence on standard or low-dose combination medicines that combine at least three antihypertensive medicines. A literature search was conducted via Scopus, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane clinical trials database. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomised clinical trials that included adults (>18 years) and examined the impact of at least three antihypertensive medications on blood pressure (BP). A total of 18 trials (n=14 307) were identified that examined combinations of three or four antihypertensive medicines. Ten trials investigated the effect of a standard dose triple combination polypill, four the effect of a low-dose triple and four the effect of a low-dose quadruple combination polypill. The mean difference (MD) in systolic BP ranged from -10.6 to -41.4 for the standard dose triple combination polypill in comparison with 2.1 to -34.5 for dual combination; -9.8 to -20.6 for a low-dose combination polypill in comparison with a MD of -0.9 to -5.2 for placebo; -9.0 to -29.3 for a low-dose combination polypill compared with -2.0 to -20.6 for monotherapy or usual care. All trials reported similar rates of adverse events. Ten studies reported medication adherence, six reported >95% adherence. Triple and quadruple combination antihypertensive medications are effective. Studies of low-dose triple and quadruple combinations involving treatment naïve populations suggest initiating such combinations are safe and effective as first-line therapy for stage 2 hypertension (BP >140/90 mm Hg).

The role of Levosimendan in cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Although initial resuscitation from cardiac arrest (CA) has increased over the past years, long term survival rates remain dismal. Epinephrine is the vasopressor of choice in the treatment of CA. However, its efficacy has been questioned, as it has no apparent benefits for long-term survival or favorable neurologic outcome. Levosimendan is an inodilator with cardioprotective and neuroprotective effects. Several studies suggest that it is associated with increased rates of return of spontaneous circulation as well as improved post-resuscitation myocardial function and neurological outcome. The purpose of this article is to review the properties of Levosimendan during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and also to summarize existing evidence regarding the use of Levosimendan in the treatment of CA.

Manidipine plus delapril in patients with Type 2 diabetes and hypertension: reducing cardiovascular risk and end-organ damage

In patients with hypertension and diabetes, atherothrombosis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and there is now compelling evidence demonstrating that lowering elevated blood pressure (BP) is one of the most beneficial aims of therapy in this high-risk population. Indeed, major international guidelines have set a target BP goal of 130/80 mmHg in high-risk patients and recommend combination treatment with two or more drug classes to help achieve this objective. Manidipine plus delapril is a fixed-dose combination of a third-generation dihydropyridine calcium antagonist and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, which is effective in mild-to-moderately hypertensive patients with an inadequate response to monotherapy. It is also effective in the long-term (50 weeks) management of essential hypertension. Comparative studies have demonstrated that manidipine plus delapril is as effective as enalapril plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with hypertension that is unresponsive to monotherapy, and as effective as ramipril plus HCTZ, valsartan plus HCTZ, irbesartan plus HCTZ and olmesartan plus HCTZ in patients with essential hypertension and Type 2 diabetes. In addition, manidipine plus delapril exhibited renoprotective effects in normotensive Type 2 diabetic patients, and improved fibrinolytic function (significantly more than irbesartan plus HCTZ) in hypertensive patients with Type 2 diabetes. Manidipine 10 mg plus delapril 30 mg once daily was generally well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse effects and evidence of a low incidence of ankle edema. Thus, manidipine plus delapril is a fixed-dose combination treatment that significantly reduces elevated BP with once-daily administration. It is well tolerated and has ancillary properties, such as nephroprotective activity and improvement of fibrinolytic balance, which may help reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, particularly in high-risk patients, such as those with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

A randomized, phase 3 trial of naltrexone SR/bupropion SR on weight and obesity-related risk factors (COR-II)

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of naltrexone/bupropion (NB) combination therapy on weight and weight-related risk factors in overweight and obese participants.

DESIGN AND METHODS

CONTRAVE Obesity Research-II (COR-II) was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 1,496 obese (BMI 30-45 kg/m(2) ) or overweight (27-45 kg/m(2) with dyslipidemia and/or hypertension) participants randomized 2:1 to combined naltrexone sustained-release (SR) (32 mg/day) plus bupropion SR (360 mg/day) (NB32) or placebo for up to 56 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were percent weight change and proportion achieving ≥ 5% weight loss at week 28.

RESULTS

Significantly (P < 0.001) greater weight loss was observed with NB32 versus placebo at week 28 (-6.5% vs. -1.9%) and week 56 (-6.4% vs. -1.2%). More NB32-treated participants (P < 0.001) experienced ≥ 5% weight loss versus placebo at week 28 (55.6% vs. 17.5%) and week 56 (50.5% vs. 17.1%). NB32 produced greater improvements in various cardiometabolic risk markers, participant-reported weight-related quality of life, and control of eating. The most common adverse event with NB was nausea, which was generally mild to moderate and transient. NB was not associated with increased events of depression or suicidality versus placebo.

CONCLUSION

NB represents a novel pharmacological approach to the treatment of obesity, and may become a valuable new therapeutic option.

Anti-hypertension Effects of Traditional Chinese Medicine Ju-Ling-Tang on Renal Hypertensive Rats

This research investigated the anti-hypertension effect of the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) Ju-Ling-Tang (JLT) on an animal model of hypertension induced by unilateral renal artery ligation. In the study of anti-hypertension effects, 60 minutes after oral administration with NG tube feeding of 240 mg/kg JLT, a significant decrease in blood pressure ( p < 0.05) was observed and sustained till 120 minutes. In the group given 50 mg/kg α-methyldopa orally, the effect was obvious 90 minutes after medication ( p < 0.01), and lasted until 240 minutes. In terms of organ pathology, a significant reduction in the extent of induced glomerular sclerosis was observed in rats given 240 mg/kg JLT compared with the control. From these results, we infer that JLT has a beneficial anti-hypertensive effect on renal hypertension.

Hydrochlorothiazide versus calcium channel blockers: what is the best add-on to a renin-angiotensin system blocker for treating hypertension in patients with renal disease?

Hypertension remains an important problem that increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Achieving long-term control of arterial hypertension, which has an estimated prevalence of 28% in the US adult population, would translate into a significant reduction in cardiovascular events. Specific causes can be identified and treated for certain forms of secondary hypertension, but often it is multifactorial. Therefore, it makes sense to attain blood pressure control by addressing more than one pressor mechanism. Several clinical studies have demonstrated that combination antihypertensive therapy is more effective than monotherapy, and a review of currently published data suggests that approximately 75% of hypertensive individuals will require some form of combination therapy to achieve target blood pressure (BP) goals. To this end, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of Blood Pressure (JNC 7) has recommended that antihypertensive therapy should start with two drugs when a patient presents with systolic blood pressure (SBP) more than 20 mm Hg above target levels, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) more than 10 mm Hg above target levels, or both. This review attempts to analyze the current evidence in published medical literature to answer the question of whether hydrochlorothiazide or a calcium channel blocker is a better add-on to a renin-angiotensin system blocker for treating hypertension in patients with renal disease.

Hypertension 2010: what was new for the cardiologist?

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Despite extensive clinical research, still there is some uncertainty regarding management of hypertension, in particular initial and goal blood pressure levels and selection of optimal pharmacotherapy, as well as concomitant medications, to reduce other risk factors.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

An overview of recent findings from major clinical trials in hypertension (until July 2010), along with a reappraisal of the European Society of Hypertension 2009 guidelines.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Practical overview of the management of hypertension, including threshold and goal blood pressure in specific situations, choice of antihypertensive medications and indications for treatment of concomitant risk factors.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Primary benefits of antihypertensive therapy are mediated by blood pressure reduction and the majority of patients will require at least two drugs, with the preference of fixed-dose combinations for effective blood pressure control.

A critical appraisal of the clinical effectiveness of a fixed combination of valsartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide in achieving blood pressure goals

Recent guidelines for the treatment of hypertension have focused on the need for multiple medications to get most patients to goal blood pressure (BP). Two to three different classes of antihypertensive agents are frequently required, increasing the risk of poor compliance with therapy. Hence, the guidelines have recommended starting with combination therapy in patients with BP that is over 20 mm Hg systolic or 10 mm Hg diastolic above goal. The latest advance in treatment regimen has been the development of triple-therapy combinations of an angiotensin receptor blocker, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide. We review the pathophysiologic rationale for such a combination and the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the first triple therapy that has become available: valsartan + amlodipine + hydrochlorothiazide. Finally, we suggest that use of triple therapy could improve the accuracy of diagnosing resistant hypertension, an increasingly prevalent and severe condition, by enhancing adherence to treatment and weeding out patients with pseudoresistance. This would allow for implementation of expensive and invasive workup only in those truly resistant patients in whom it is justified.

Combination therapy in hypertension

The goal of antihypertensive therapy is to abolish the risks associated with blood pressure (BP) elevation without adversely affecting quality of life. Drug selection is based on efficacy in lowering BP and in reducing cardiovascular (CV) end points, including stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Although the choice of initial drug therapy exerts some effect on long-term outcomes, it is evident that BP reduction per se is the primary determinant of CV risk reduction. Available data suggest that at least 75% of patients will require combination therapy to achieve contemporary BP targets, and increasing emphasis is being placed on the practical tasks involved in consistently achieving and maintaining goal BP in clinical practice. It is within this context that the American Society of Hypertension presents this Position Paper on Combination Therapy for Hypertension. It will address the scientific basis of combination therapy, present the pharmacologic rationale for choosing specific drug combinations, and review patient selection criteria for initial and secondary use. The advantages and disadvantages of single-pill (fixed) drug combinations and the implications of recent clinical trials involving specific combination strategies will also be discussed.

Effect of naltrexone plus bupropion on weight loss in overweight and obese adults (COR-I): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing public health concerns regarding obesity, few safe and effective drug treatments are available. Combination treatment with sustained-release naltrexone and bupropion was developed to produce complementary actions in CNS pathways regulating bodyweight. The Contrave Obesity Research I (COR-I) study assessed the effect of such treatment on bodyweight in overweight and obese participants.

METHODS

Men and women aged 18-65 years who had a body-mass index (BMI) of 30-45 kg/m(2) and uncomplicated obesity or BMI 27-45 kg/m(2) with dyslipidaemia or hypertension were eligible for enrolment in this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial undertaken at 34 sites in the USA. Participants were prescribed mild hypocaloric diet and exercise and were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive sustained-release naltrexone 32 mg per day plus sustained-release bupropion 360 mg per day combined in fixed-dose tablets (also known as NB32), sustained-release naltrexone 16 mg per day plus sustained-release bupropion 360 mg per day combined in fixed-dose tablets (also known as NB16), or matching placebo twice a day, given orally for 56 weeks. The trial included a 3-week dose escalation. Randomisation was done by use of a centralised, computer-generated, web-based system and was stratified by study centre. Co-primary efficacy endpoints at 56 weeks were percentage change in bodyweight and proportion of participants who achieved a decrease in bodyweight of 5% or more. The primary analysis included all randomised participants with a baseline weight measurement and a post-baseline weight measurement while on study drug (last observation carried forward). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00532779.

FINDINGS

1742 participants were enrolled and randomised to double-blind treatment (naltrexone 32 mg plus bupropion, n=583; naltrexone 16 mg plus bupropion, n=578; placebo, n=581). 870 (50%) participants completed 56 weeks of treatment (n=296; n=284; n=290, respectively) and 1453 (83%) were included in the primary analysis (n=471; n=471; n=511). Mean change in bodyweight was -1.3% (SE 0.3) in the placebo group, -6.1% (0.3) in the naltrexone 32 mg plus bupropion group (p<0.0001 vs placebo) and -5.0% (0.3) in the naltrexone 16 mg plus bupropion group (p<0.0001 vs placebo). 84 (16%) participants assigned to placebo had a decrease in bodyweight of 5% or more compared with 226 (48%) assigned to naltrexone 32 mg plus bupropion (p<0.0001 vs placebo) and 186 (39%) assigned to naltrexone 16 mg plus bupropion (p<0.0001 vs placebo). The most frequent adverse event in participants assigned to combination treatment was nausea (naltrexone 32 mg plus bupropion, 171 participants [29.8%]; naltrexone 16 mg plus bupropion, 155 [27.2%]; placebo, 30 [5.3%]). Headache, constipation, dizziness, vomiting, and dry mouth were also more frequent in the naltrexone plus bupropion groups than in the placebo group. A transient increase of around 1.5 mm Hg in mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure was followed by a reduction of around 1 mm Hg below baseline in the naltrexone plus bupropion groups. Combination treatment was not associated with increased depression or suicidality events compared with placebo.

INTERPRETATION

A sustained-release combination of naltrexone plus bupropion could be a useful therapeutic option for treatment of obesity.

FUNDING

Orexigen Therapeutics.

Combination therapy in hypertension

The goal of antihypertensive therapy is to abolish the risks associated with blood pressure (BP) elevation without adversely affecting quality of life. Drug selection is based on efficacy in lowering BP and in reducing cardiovascular (CV) end points including stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Although the choice of initial drug therapy exerts some effect on long-term outcomes, it is evident that BP reduction per se is the primary determinant of CV risk reduction. Available data suggest that at least 75% of patients will require combination therapy to achieve contemporary BP targets, and increasing emphasis is being placed on the practical tasks involved in consistently achieving and maintaining goal BP in clinical practice. It is within this context that the American Society of Hypertension presents this Position Paper on Combination Therapy for Hypertension. It will address the scientific basis of combination therapy, present the pharmacologic rationale for choosing specific drug combinations, and review patient selection criteria for initial and secondary use. The advantages and disadvantages of single pill (fixed) drug combinations, and the implications of recent clinical trials involving specific combination strategies will also be discussed.

Role of valsartan, amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide fixed combination in blood pressure control: an update

The treatment of moderate or severe hypertension in most cases requires the contemporaneous use of multiple antihypertensive agents. The most available two-drug combinations have an agent that addresses renin secretion and another one that is statistically more effective in renin-independent hypertension. The practice of combining agents that counteract different mechanisms is the most likely explanation for the fact that most available two-drug combinations have an agent that addresses renin secretion (beta-blocker, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blocker or direct renin inhibitor) and another one that is more effective in renin-independent hypertension (diuretic, dihydropyridine or non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker). Based on these considerations, addition of hydrochlorothiazide to the combination of an antagonist of the renin-angiotensin system with a calcium channel blocker would constitute a logical approach. Inclusion of a diuretic in the triple combination is based on the evidence that these agents are effective and cheap, enhance the effect of other antihypertensive agents, and add a specific effect to individuals with salt-sensitivity of blood pressure. The benefit of triple combination therapy with amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide over its dual component therapies has been demonstrated, and the use of a single pill will simplify therapy resulting in better blood pressure control.

Combination therapy in hypertension: A focus on angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium channel blockers

Every third adult in the United States has hypertension. Hypertension is a continuous, independent, potent risk factor for cardiovascular events like stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. The blood pressure control achieved with most hypertensives is way below the recommended goal. Recent trials suggest that for nearly half of hypertensive patients, a monotherapy regimen is not adequate to control blood pressure. Investigators recommend from randomized, controlled studies that combination therapy be considered when blood pressure is above the goal of 20/10 mm Hg. In this review we discuss clinical trials that establish the need for combination therapy, with the primary focus on a new combination: calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). ARBs and CCBs in combination can complement each other in lowering blood pressure, with a lower incidence of adverse effects, as compared with individual monotherapy components at high doses.

A role for single-pill triple therapy in hypertension

Hypertension remains the most prevalent chronic disease in the world, and its adequate treatment results in predictable reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, most hypertensive subjects do not achieve goal blood pressure despite availability of multiple antihypertensive agents with various pharmacological mechanisms of action and relatively few side effects. We review the reasons for low hypertension control rates, including factors that affect patients' adherence to therapy, number of agents required to achieve goal blood pressure, pathophysiology-based selection of therapy and diagnosis of resistant hypertension. Within this framework, we discuss the possible impact of a single-pill, triple-therapy combination with an antagonist of the renin—angiotensin system, a calcium-channel blocker and a diuretic. We focus on possible differential diagnostic implications in terms of refractoriness to treatment, and therapeutic implications in terms of successful blood pressure control. We conclude that a single-pill, triple-therapy combination may improve control of hypertension by enhancing compliance, by achieving blood pressure goal rapidly and by reducing physician inertia in prescribing adequate antihypertensive therapy. We also suggest that such a combination may lead to improved accuracy in diagnosing resistant hypertension in general practice, avoiding unnecessary further workup and referrals to hypertension specialists.

Rational design of a combination medication for the treatment of obesity

Existing obesity therapies are limited by safety concerns and modest efficacy reflecting a weight loss plateau. Here, we explore combination therapy with bupropion (BUP), a putative stimulator of melanocortin pathways, and an opioid antagonist, naltrexone (NAL), to antagonize an inhibitory feedback loop that limits sustained weight reduction. In vitro electrophysiologic experiments were conducted to determine the extent to which BUP+NAL stimulated hypothalamic pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC) neurons in mouse brain. A subsequent study further characterized the effect of combination BUP+NAL treatment on food intake in lean and obese mice. Finally, a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial in obese adult subjects was conducted. Randomization included: BUP (300 mg) + NAL (50 mg), BUP (300 mg) + placebo (P), NAL (50 mg) + P or P+P for up to 24 weeks. BUP+NAL stimulated murine POMC neurons in vitro and caused a greater reduction in acute food intake than either monotherapy, an effect consistent with synergism. Combined BUP+NAL provided sustained weight loss without evidence of an efficacy plateau through 24 weeks of treatment. BUP+NAL completers diverged from NAL+P (P < 0.01) and P+P (P < 0.001) at week 16 and from BUP+P by week 24 (P < 0.05). The combination was also well tolerated. Translational studies indicated that BUP+NAL therapy produced synergistic weight loss which exceeded either BUP or NAL alone. These results supported the hypothesis that NAL, through blockade of beta-endorphin mediated POMC autoinhibition, prevents the classic weight loss plateau observed with monotherapies such as BUP. This novel treatment approach (BUP+NAL) holds promise for the treatment of obesity.\

Combination antihypertensive therapy with valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide in Chinese patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of valsartan (VAL)/HCTZ 80/12.5 mg with VAL 80 mg in Chinese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension not adequately controlled with VAL 80 mg alone.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group trial. Patients (1175) with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [MSDBP] > or = 95 and < 110 mmHg) from 26 centers in China received VAL 80 mg o.d. for 4 weeks, 864 patients whose MSDBP remained > or = 90 and < 110 mmHg were randomized (1:1) to receive VAL80/HCTZ12.5 mg (n = 429) or VAL80 mg (n = 435) for 8 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The efficacy variable was changed from baseline to endpoint in trough MSDBP. The secondary efficacy variables were changed in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP), response rate, and control rate.

RESULTS

Significant reductions in MSDBP and MSSBP from baseline to endpoint were observed in both groups. There were significantly greater reductions in MSDBP (8.4 mmHg vs. 6.2 mmHg) and MSSBP (10.2 mmHg vs. 6.7 mmHg), higher response (64.2% vs. 52.5%) and control rates (53.9% vs. 40.9%) in the VAL80/HCTZ12.5 group as compared with the VAL80 group at endpoint (p < 0.001). VAL80/HCTZ12.5 was equally effective in both age subgroups (> or = 65 and < 65 years) and was well tolerated. There were no deaths and the two serious adverse events reported were unrelated to study medication.

CONCLUSION

In Chinese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension not adequately controlled by VAL 80 mg alone, VAL80/HCTZ12.5 mg combination was well tolerated and showed additional BP reduction. The limitations of this study were the inability to include an HCTZ arm as a control group and the short trial duration.

Assessment of adherence, persistence, and costs among valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide retrospective cohorts in free-and fixed-dose combinations

OBJECTIVES

To assess medication adherence, persistence, and costs between cohorts of patients in managed care settings using a fixed-dose combination (FDC) or individual components (IC) of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide in an insurance claims database.

METHODS

Medical and prescription claims for hypertensive patients using a combination of valsartan and HCTZ were identified from the IHCIS National Managed Care Benchmark Database via a retrospective cohort analysis. Study subjects had at least 110 days prior to start of study medications during which no other antihypertensive medications were prescribed, and were followed for 12 months. Claims for 8711 adult patients were analyzed for adherence, persistence and costs. General linear regression was conducted to detect differences in adherence among groups. Covariates included age, gender, persistence, number on concomitant cardiovascular drugs, and number of cardiovascular diagnoses.

RESULTS

Most subjects used an FDC product (N=8150, 93.6%) vs. the IC (N=561, 6.4%). The FDC group had a larger portion of males and less concomitant cardiovascular medications or disease. A random sample of 1628 of the FDC subjects had improved values for medication adherence compared to the IC group (62.1 vs. 53.0%, p<0.001) and persistence values were improved at both 180 days (73 vs. 28%, p<0.001) and 365 days (54 vs. 19%, p<0.001). Both prescription drug costs ($1587 vs. $2050, p<0.001) and medical costs ($3343 vs. $3817, p<0.001) were lower in the FDC cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of fixed-dose therapy in hypertension may lead to increased adherence and persistence with a positive financial impact on both prescription and total medical costs. As with any retrospective claims database analysis, unobserved systematic differences between the two medication groups may exist.

The need for combination antihypertensive therapy to reach target blood pressures: what has been learned from clinical practice and morbidity-mortality trials?

Pharmacological treatment of hypertension represents a cost-effective way for preventing cardiovascular and renal complications. To benefit maximally from antihypertensive treatment blood pressure (BP) should be brought to below 140/90 mmHg in every hypertensive patient, and even lower (< 130/80 mmHg) if diabetes or renal disease co-exists. Most of the time such targets cannot be reached using monotherapies. This is especially true in patients who exhibit a high cardiovascular risk. The co-administration of two agents acting by different mechanisms considerably increases BP control. Such preparations are not only efficacious, but also well tolerated, and some fixed low-dose combinations have a tolerability profile similar to placebo. This is for instance the case for the preparation containing the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor perindopril (2 mg) and the diuretic indapamide (0.625 mg), a fixed low-dose combination that has recently been shown in controlled interventional trials to be more effective than monotherapies in reducing albuminuria, regressing cardiac hypertrophy and improving macrovascular stiffness. Fixed-dose combinations are becoming more and more popular and are even proposed by current hypertension guidelines as a first-line option to treat hypertensive patients.

Effective treatment of hypertension by AT(1) receptor antagonism: the past and future of telmisartan

Lowering blood pressure is the most effective treatment method to ensure a reduction in the total risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The renin-angiotensin system plays an important role in volume homeostasis and blood pressure regulation and is a target for several groups of pharmaceutical agents. Angiotensin II receptor blockers represent the newest class of antihypertensive compounds. They prevent the binding of angiotensin II to the subtype 1 receptor (AT(1)), which is believed to mediate most of the physiological actions relevant to the regulation of blood pressure. Telmisartan, a widely used AT(1) receptor antagonist, is a highly selective compound with high potency, a long duration of action and a tolerability profile similar to placebo. Numerous randomized clinical trials and community-based studies have demonstrated that oral telmisartan and combinations of telmisartan with hydrochlorothiazide are at least as effective in lowering blood pressure as all other hypertensive medications. This has been demonstrated in different populations of adult patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension, including patients with coexisting Type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome or renal impairment. Several large-scale, long-term, clinical endpoint studies are in progress to assess the beneficial effects of telmisartan on hypertension-related end-organ damage in patients at high risk of renal, cardiac and vascular damage whose blood pressure is well controlled. The most recent data from clinical trials and latest research regarding telmisartan will be reviewed in this article.

Comparison of fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide 40/12.5 mg and 80/12.5 mg and a fixed-dose combination of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide 50/12.5 mg in mild to moderate essential hypertension: pooled analysis of two multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point (PROBE) trials

BACKGROUND

High incidences of cardiovascular events coincide with a surge in blood pressure (BP) that occurs in the early morning hours at the time of arousal. Thus, control of BP at this time of day, using oral fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) as required, is important in reducing cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this analysis was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy in the early morning hours and tolerability of oral FDCs of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (40/12.5 mg [T40/H12.5] and 80/12.5 mg [T80/H12.5]) versus a low-dose FDC of losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (L50/H12.5).

METHODS

Data from 2 similarly designed prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point (PROBE) studies were pooled and analyzed. The studies were conducted at 72 centers across the United States, and 70 centers in Canada, Europe (9 countries), and the Philippines. Adult male and female patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (24-hour mean ambulatory diastolic BP [DBP], > or =85 mm Hg; seated cuff DBP, 90-109 mm Hg) were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive T40/H12.5, L50/H12.5, or T80/H12.5, QD (morning) for 6 weeks. Antihypertensive efficacy was assessed using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and cuff sphygmomanometry at trough, performed at baseline and on completion of active treatment. The primary end point was the reduction from baseline in mean ambulatory DBP over the last 6 hours of the dosing interval. Secondary end points included other ABPM- and clinic-derived changes in DBP and systolic BP (SBP), and control and response rates (SBP response defined as 24-hour mean SBP <130 mm Hg and/or reduction from baseline > or =10 mm Hg; DBP response defined as 24-hour mean DBP <85 mm Hg or reduction from baseline > or =10 mm Hg; DBP control defined as 24-hour mean DBP <85 mm Hg). Tolerability was assessed using patient interview, spontaneous reporting, and clinical evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 1402 patients were enrolled(876 men, 525 women; mean [SD] age, 53.1 [9.9] years) (T40/H12.5, n = 517; L50/H12.5, n = 518; and T80/H12.5, n = 367). With T40/H12.5, the mean reduction in last-6-hour mean ambulatory DBP was 1.8 mm Hg greater compared with that achieved with L50/H12.5 (-11.3 [0.4] vs -9.4 [0.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001), and with T80/H12.5, the mean reduction was 2.6 mm Hg greater compared with that achieved with L50/H12.5 (-12.0 [0.4] vs -9.4 [0.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001). Analysis of secondary end points found that greater BP reduction occurred with T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5. ABPM SBP control and response rates were similar between the 3 groups, but the ABPM DBP control and response rates were significantly higher with T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5 (46.6% vs 34.0% [P < 0.002] and 69.4% vs 55.0% [P < 0.001], respectively). Clinic SBP and DBP control and response rates were higher with T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5 (SBP response, 80.4% and 80.8% vs 68.5% [both, P < 0.001]; DBP response, 66.1% and 67.4% vs 54.4% [both, P < 0.001]; DBP control, 56.5% and 56.4% vs 44.1% [both, P < 0.001] ). The 2 most commonly recorded adverse events (AEs) were headache (T40/H12.5, 2.9%; L50/H12.5, 3.3%; and T80/H12.5, 3.0%) and dizziness (1.2%, 2.1%, and 3.0%, respectively). Most AEs were mild to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this pooled analysis of2 PROBE studies in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension suggest that T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 conferred greater DBP and SBP control compared with low-dose L50/H12.5, including during the last 6 hours of the dosing interval. All 3 treatments were well tolerated.

Delapril/Manidipine

Delapril/manidipine 30 mg/10 mg is a new oral, once-daily, fixed combination of an ACE inhibitor and a dihydropyridine calcium-channel antagonist for the treatment of essential hypertension. In a dose-finding study in 400 patients with mild to moderate hypertension, delapril/manidipine 30mg/10mg once daily produced the greatest reduction in blood pressure (BP) of the combinations tested. Delapril/manidipine 30mg/10mg once daily for 6 weeks reduced systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) by 15/13mm Hg. In nonresponders to monotherapy with delapril (n = 155) or manidipine (n = 152), delapril/manidipine 30mg/10mg once daily for 12 weeks reduced mean SBP/DBP by 16/11mm Hg and 16/10mm Hg, respectively. Delapril/manidipine 30mg/10mg once daily for 12 weeks in patients with mild to moderate hypertension (n = 131) demonstrated significantly greater antihypertensive efficacy than monotherapy with manidipine 10mg once daily (n = 134) or delapril 15mg twice daily (n = 136). Mean SBP/DBP reductions from baseline were 19/14, 15/11 and 14/10mm Hg, respectively. After 50 weeks of therapy with delapril/manidipine 30mg/10mg once daily, mean SBP/DBP was reduced by 22/14mm Hg in patients with mild to moderate hypertension (n = 309). Delapril/manidipine 30mg/10mg once daily was generally well tolerated. The incidence and nature of adverse events were similar to those observed in recipients of monotherapy with the individual agents. Combination therapy was associated with less ankle oedema than manidipine monotherapy.

Fixed drug combinations for the acute treatment of migraine : place in therapy

Fixed drug combinations (FDCs) combine standardised doses of two or more drugs in a single tablet, injection, nasal spray or suppository. FDCs may improve treatment compliance, efficacy or tolerability through a variety of mechanisms. At present, FDCs are commonly used in migraine treatment, and more are in development. This systematic review identified 43 prospective trials of FDCs in use for the acute treatment of migraine. Quantitative combination and analysis of the data were not possible, but results of the review support the following qualitative conclusions. First, many FDCs in use for the acute treatment of migraine are older drugs. In these cases, clinical trial evidence that the FDC is efficacious or has important advantages over its treatment components is lacking. The benefits assumed for some common FDC ingredients such as caffeine and metoclopramide are not clearly confirmed in these trials. Secondly, the use of barbiturate-containing FDCs for the acute treatment of migraine is not evidence based, and these drugs are frequently implicated in the development of dependence or medication-induced headache syndromes. Thirdly, studied opioid-containing FDCs are generally superior to placebo, but evidence regarding the safety and tolerability of their repeated use in the treatment of migraine is lacking; clinical experience dictates caution in the use of these agents. Fourthly, ergotamine-containing FDCs are generally superior to placebo, but perform poorly in comparison with single-agent selective serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists ('triptans'), NSAIDs or even isometheptene or opioid comparators, and are less well tolerated. Fifthly, the most consistent and impressive evidence of benefit is for NSAID-containing FDCs. These invariably outperform placebo and are equivalent or superior to active comparators. Finally, with renewed interest in the use of FDCs for the acute treatment of migraine, high-quality evidence of a benefit for such treatments is emerging. An FDC containing a triptan and NSAID seems most likely to provide efficacy and tolerability benefits in the acute treatment of migraine. Such an FDC is in development but not yet approved for use.

Effects of oral fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan plus ramipril and losartan plus ramipril in hypertension: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase iii trial in adult indian patients

BACKGROUND

A new oral fixed-dose combination (FDC) of telmisartan plus ramipril is being introduced in India for the treatment of patients with stage 2 hypertension.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of an oral FDC of telmisartan plus ramipril with those of an oral FDC of losartan plus ramipril in adult Indian patients with stage 2 hypertension.

METHODS

This multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase III study was conducted at 5 centers in India. Indian patients aged 18 to 65 years with uncomplicated stage 2 essential hypertension (systolic/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP], >160/>100 mm Hg) were enrolled. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive telmisartan 40 mg plus ramipril 5 mg (T + R) or losartan 50 mg plus ramipril 5 mg (L + R), PO (tablet) QD (before the morning meal) for 8 weeks. Supine blood pressure (BP) was measured at 0 (baseline) and 8 weeks of treatment. The primary end point was the mean reduction from baseline in BP. Responders were classified as patients who had a DBP <90 mm Hg at the end of 8 weeks of therapy. Tolerability was assessed using spontaneous reports of adverse events (AEs) during the follow-up visits and laboratory analyses performed at week 8.

RESULTS

A total of 289 patients were enrolled (155 men, 134 women; mean age, 50.74 years). Of these, 8 patients in the T + R group and 7 in the L + R group were lost to follow-up and considered withdrawals. At the end of week 8, the mean percentage reduction in SBP was significantly greater in the T + R group compared with that in the L + R group (24.1% vs 19.4%; P < 0.05). The mean percentage reduction in DBP was also significantly greater in the T + R group compared with that in the L + R group (17.3% vs 12.5%; P < 0.05). The response rates in the T + R and L + R groups were statistically similar (79.1% vs 68.7%). The most common AEs in the T + R and L + R groups were cough (9 [6.1%] and 11 [7.8%] patients, respectively) and headache (7 [4.7%] and 8 [5.7%] patients, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The results in this study in Indian patients with stage 2 essential hypertension suggest that the FDC of T + R controlled BP more effectively compared with the FDC of L + R over 8 weeks. The response rates were similar between the 2 groups. Both treatments were well tolerated.

The Blood Pressure "Uncertainty Range" - a pragmatic approach to overcome current diagnostic uncertainties (II)

A tremendous amount of scientific evidence regarding the physiology and physiopathology of high blood pressure combined with a sophisticated therapeutic arsenal is at the disposal of the medical community to counteract the overall public health burden of hypertension. Ample evidence has also been gathered from a multitude of large-scale randomized trials indicating the beneficial effects of current treatment strategies in terms of reduced hypertension-related morbidity and mortality.In spite of these impressive advances and, deeply disappointingly from a public health perspective, the real picture of hypertension management is overshadowed by widespread diagnostic inaccuracies (underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis) as well as by treatment failures generated by undertreatment, overtreatment, and misuse of medications.The scientific, medical and patient communities as well as decision-makers worldwide are striving for greatest possible health gains from available resources.A seemingly well-crystallised reasoning is that comprehensive strategic approaches must not only target hypertension as a pathological entity, but rather, take into account the wider environment in which hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease carrying a great deal of our inheritance, and its interplay in the constellation of other, well-known, modifiable risk factors, i.e., attention is to be switched from one's "blood pressure level" to one's absolute cardiovascular risk and its determinants. Likewise, a risk/benefit assessment in each individual case is required in order to achieve best possible results.Nevertheless, it is of paramount importance to insure generalizability of ABPM use in clinical practice with the aim of improving the accuracy of a first diagnosis for both individual treatment and clinical research purposes. Widespread adoption of the method requires quick adjustment of current guidelines, development of appropriate technology infrastructure and training of staff (i.e., education, decision support, and information systems for practitioners and patients). Progress can be achieved in a few years, or in the next 25 years.

A novel approach to treatment of hypertension in diabetic patients - a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study comparing the efficacy of combination therapy of Eprosartan versus Ramipril with low-dose Hydrochlorothiazide and Moxonidine on blood pressure levels in patients with hypertension and associated diabetes mellitus type 2 - rationale and design [ISRCTN55725285]

Hypertension and diabetes mellitus are closely interrelated and coexist in as many as two-thirds of patients with type 2 diabetes. The consequent risk of such an association is an accelerated development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and nephropathy complications.In choosing an antihypertensive agent, effectiveness needs to be accompanied by favourable metabolic, cardioprotective, and nephroprotective properties. Given the multifactorial nature of hypertension, the approach that has gained widespread agreement is treatment with more than one agent. Agents with different mechanisms of action increase antihypertensive efficacy because of synergistic impacts on the cardiovascular system. Combination therapy allows the use of lower doses of each antihypertensive agent which accounts for the excellent tolerability of combination products.The aim of the present study is to quantify the efficacy of combination therapy of Eprosartan 600 mg respectively Ramipril 5 mg with low-dose Hydrochlorothiazide and Moxonidine on blood pressure levels in patients with essential hypertension and associated diabetes mellitus type 2.The use of monotherapy (Eprosartan or Ramipril) followed by addition of low-dose Hydrochlorothiazide as second agent and of Moxonidine as a third agent will be individualized to the severity of hypertension in the particular patient and to his/her degree of response to current treatment.

Achieving goal blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes: conventional versus fixed-dose combination approaches

Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) demonstrate that only 11% of people with diabetes who are treated for high blood pressure achieve the blood pressure goal of <130/85 mm Hg recommended in the sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI). The current study tests the hypothesis that initial therapy with a fixed-dose combination will achieve the recommended blood pressure goal in patients with type 2 diabetes faster than conventional monotherapy. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study had as a primary end point achievement of blood pressure <130/85 mm Hg. Participants (N=214) with hypertension and type 2 diabetes received either amlodipine/benazepril 5/10 mg (combination) or enalapril 10 mg (conventional) once daily for 4 weeks, titrated to 5/20 mg/day or 20 mg/day, respectively at this time, if target blood pressure was not achieved. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg/day was added for the final 4 weeks, if target blood pressure was still not reached. Time from baseline to achieve blood pressure <130/85 mm Hg was shorter in the combination group (5.3+/-3.1 weeks combination vs. 6.4+/-3.8 weeks conventional; p=0.001). At 3 months, more participants in the combination group achieved treatment goal (63% combination vs. 37% conventional; p=0.002). Data analysis at 3 months comparing blood pressure control rates between the fixed-dose combination group (without HCTZ) to the conventional group (receiving HCTZ) showed an even greater disparity in blood pressure goal achievement (87% combination without HCTZ vs. 37% conventional group with HCTZ; p=0.0001). We conclude that initial therapy with a fixed-dose combination may be more efficacious than conventional monotherapy approaches for achieving blood pressure goals in the diabetic patient. A fixed-dose combination approach appears as safe as the current conventional approaches.