Does earlier attainment of blood pressure goal translate into fewer cardiovascular events?

Systolic Blood Pressure Response in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) and ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes): A Possible Explanation for Discordant Trial Results

Background

SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) and the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) blood pressure trial used similar interventions but produced discordant results. We investigated whether differences in systolic blood pressure (SBP) response contributed to the discordant trial results.

Methods and Results

We evaluated the distributions of SBP response during the first year for the intensive and standard treatment groups of SPRINT and ACCORD using growth mixture models. We assessed whether significant differences existed between trials in the distributions of SBP achieved at 1 year and the treatment‐independent relationships of achieved SBP with risks of primary outcomes defined in each trial, heart failure, stroke, and all‐cause death. We examined whether visit‐to‐visit variability was associated with heterogeneous treatment effects. Among the included 9027 SPRINT and 4575 ACCORD participants, the difference in mean SBP achieved between treatment groups was 15.7 mm Hg in SPRINT and 14.2 mm Hg in ACCORD, but SPRINT had significantly less between‐group overlap in the achieved SBP (standard deviations of intensive and standard groups, respectively: 6.7 and 5.9 mm Hg in SPRINT versus 8.8 and 8.2 mm Hg in ACCORD; P<0.001). The relationship between achieved SBP and outcomes was consistent across trials except for stroke and all‐cause death. Higher visit‐to‐visit variability was more common in SPRINT but without treatment‐effect heterogeneity.

Conclusions

SPRINT and ACCORD had different degrees of separation in achieved SBP between treatment groups, even as they had similar mean differences. The greater between‐group overlap of achieved SBP may have contributed to the discordant trial results.

Screening and Treatment for Subclinical Hypertensive Heart Disease in Emergency Department Patients With Uncontrolled Blood Pressure: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Poorly controlled hypertension (HTN) is extremely prevalent and, if left unchecked, subclinical hypertensive heart disease (SHHD) may ensue leading to conditions such as heart failure. To address this, we designed a multidisciplinary program to detect and treat SHHD in a high-risk, predominantly African American community. The primary objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of our program.

METHODS

Study costs associated with identifying and treating patients with SHHD were calculated and a sensitivity analysis was performed comparing the effect of four parameters on cost estimates. These included prevalence of disease, effectiveness of treatment (regression of SHHD, reversal of left ventricular hypertrophy [LVH], or blood pressure [BP] control as separate measures), echocardiogram costs, and participant time/travel costs. The parent study for this analysis was a single-center, randomized controlled trial comparing cardiac effects of standard and intense (<120/80 mm Hg) BP goals at 1 year in patients with uncontrolled HTN and SHHD. A total of 149 patients (94% African American) were enrolled, 133 (89%) had SHHD, 123 (93%) of whom were randomized, with 88 (72%) completing the study. Patients were clinically evaluated and medically managed over the course of 1 year with repeated echocardiograms. Costs of these interventions were analyzed and, following standard practices, a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) less than $50,000 was defined as cost-effective.

RESULTS

Total costs estimates for the program ranged from $117,044 to $119,319. Cost per QALY was dependent on SHHD prevalence and the measure of effectiveness but not input costs. Cost-effectiveness (cost per QALY less than $50,000) was achieved when SHHD prevalence exceeded 11.1% for regression of SHHD, 4.7% for reversal of LVH, and 2.9% for achievement of BP control.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of predominantly African American patients with uncontrolled HTN, SHHD prevalence was high and screening with treatment was cost-effective across a range of assumptions. These data suggest that multidisciplinary programs such as this can be a cost-effective mechanism to mitigate the cardiovascular consequences of HTN in emergency department patients with uncontrolled BP.

Total antihypertensive therapeutic intensity score and its relationship to blood pressure reduction

Predicting blood pressure (BP) response to antihypertensive therapy is challenging. The therapeutic intensity score (TIS) is a summary measure that accounts for the number of medications and the relative doses a patient received, but its relationship to BP change and its utility as a method to project dosing equivalence has not been reported. We conducted a prospective, single center, randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of Joint National Committee (JNC) 7 compliant treatment with more intensive (<120/80 mm Hg) BP goals on left ventricular structure and function in hypertensive patients with echocardiographically determined subclinical heart disease who were treated over a 12-month period. For this preplanned subanalysis, we sought to compare changes in BP over time with changes in TIS. Antihypertensive therapy was open label. TIS and BP were determined at 3-month intervals with titration of medication doses as needed to achieve targeted BP. Mixed linear models defined antihypertensive medication TIS as an independent variable and change in systolic BP as an outcome measure, while controlling for gender, age, baseline BP, and treatment group. A total of 123 patients (mean age 49.4 ± 8.2 years; 66% female; 95.1% African-American) were enrolled and 88 completed the protocol. For each single point increase in total antihypertensive TIS, a 14.5 (95% confidence interval: 11.5, 17.4) mm Hg decrease in systolic BP was noted (15.5 [95% confidence interval: 13.0, 18.0] mm Hg for those who completed the trial). Total TIS is a viable indicator of the anticipated BP-lowering effect associated with antihypertensive therapy.

No Time to Waste: in Support of Aggressive and Immediate Management of Hypertension

Untreated and uncontrolled hypertension (HTN) presents a major public health burden in the USA and worldwide. Despite the known risk for increased cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality, blood pressure remains untreated and uncontrolled at alarming rates of between 20 and 40 % in patients with known HTN. Further, while cumulative evidence indicates that early onset of antihypertensive effect improves CV outcomes, the time to blood pressure (BP) control remains long. The objective of hypertension management cannot be simply to achieve and maintain the goal BP, but to do so quickly to improve short-term and long-term CV outcomes. In this review, we will (1) describe the magnitude of uncontrolled HTN, (2) identify the factors that contribute to uncontrolled BP in patients with the diagnosis of HTN, and (3) explore the rationale for and benefits of aggressive and immediate control of HTN.

As-needed intravenous antihypertensive therapy and blood pressure control

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized patients with elevated blood pressure (BP) in most cases should be treated with intensification of oral regimens, but are often given intravenous (IV) antihypertensives.

OBJECTIVE

To determine frequency of prescribing and administering episodic IV antihypertensives and outcomes.

DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

Urban academic hospital.

PATIENTS

Non-critically ill, hospitalized patients with an IV antihypertensive order for enalaprilat, labetalol, hydralazine, or metoprolol.

MEASUREMENTS

We analyzed BP thresholds for ordering and administering IV antihypertensives, the types and frequencies of IV antihypertensives administered, and the effect of IV antihypertensive use on short-term BP and adverse outcomes. The BP change during hospitalization was contrasted in those receiving IV antihypertensives between those who did and did not receive subsequent intensification of chronic oral antihypertensive regimens.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-six patients had an episodic IV antihypertensive order. One hundred seventy-two patients received 458 doses, with 48% receiving a single dose. Over 98% of episodic IV antihypertensive doses were administered for systolic blood pressure (SBP) <200 mm Hg and 84.5% for SBP <180 mm Hg. Within 6 hours of administration, there was a statistically significant decline in average SBP and diastolic BP in patients receiving IV hydralazine and labetolol. After administration of IV antihypertensives, the oral inpatient medication regimen was adjusted in 52% of patients; these patients had a greater reduction in SBP from admission to discharge than patients with no change to their oral regimens. A total of 32.6% of patients receiving treatment experienced a BP reduction of more than 25% within 6 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

IV antihypertensive drugs are ordered and administered in patients with asymptomatic, uncontrolled BP for levels unassociated with substantive immediate cardiovascular risk, which may cause adverse effects.

Recognition and Management of Hypertension in Older Persons: Focus on African Americans

Hypertension is the most commonly diagnosed condition in persons aged 60 and older and is the single most important risk factor for cardiovascular disease (ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke), kidney disease, and dementia. More than half of individuals with hypertension in the United States are aged 60 and older. Hypertension disproportionately affects African Americans, with all age groups, including elderly adults, having a higher burden of hypertension-related complications than other U.S.

POPULATIONS

Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated the beneficial effects of blood pressure (BP) reduction on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with most of the evidence in individuals aged 60 and older. Several guidelines have recently been published on the specific management of hypertension in individuals aged 60 and older, including in high-risk groups such as African Americans. Most recommend careful evaluation, thiazide diuretics and calcium-channel blockers for initial drug therapy in most African Americans, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in those with chronic kidney disease or heart failure. Among the areas of controversy is the recommended target BP in African Americans aged 60 and older. A recent U.S. guideline recommended raising the systolic BP target from less than 140 mmHg to less than 150 mmHg in this population. This article will review the evidence and current guideline recommendations for hypertension treatment in older African Americans, including the rationale for continuing to recommend a SBP target of less than 140 mmHg in this population.

Hypertension in the African American population: A succinct look at its epidemiology, pathogenesis, and therapy

Arterial hypertension is prevalent in the black population in the United States. It is directly related to cardiovascular and kidney damage. Its pathogenesis is complex and includes the high incidence of obesity, salt sensitivity and the activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. This complexity requires a therapeutic combination that includes changes in dietary habits and appropriate antihypertensive regimes. The International Society of Hypertension in Blacks recommends initiating dietary intervention for values of systolic/diastolic arterial blood pressure above 115/75 mmHg and maintaining arterial blood pressure below 135/85 mmHg using appropiate antihypertensive medication. The most adequate antihypertensive drug for this population has yet to be determined.

Clinical inertia in poorly controlled elderly hypertensive patients: a cross-sectional study in Spanish physicians to ascertain reasons for not intensifying treatment

BACKGROUND

Clinical inertia, the failure of physicians to initiate or intensify therapy when indicated, is a major problem in the management of hypertension and may be more prevalent in elderly patients. Overcoming clinical inertia requires understanding its causes and evaluating certain factors, particularly those related to physicians.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to determine the rate of clinical inertia and the physician-reported reasons for it.

METHODS

An observational, cross-sectional, multi-center study was carried out in a primary care setting. We included 512 physicians, with a consecutive sampling of 1,499 hypertensive patients with clinical inertia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Clinical inertia was defined when physicians did not modify treatment despite knowing that the therapeutic target had not been reached. Clinical inertia was considered to be justified (JCI) when physicians provided an explanation for not intensifying treatment and as not justified (nJCI) when no reasons were given.

RESULTS

JCI was observed in 30.1 % (95 % CI 27.8-32.4) of patients (n = 451) and nJCI in 69.9 % (95 % CI 67.6-72.2) (n = 1,058). JCI was associated with higher blood pressure (BP) values (both systolic and diastolic) and diabetes (p = 0.012) than nJCI. nJCI was associated with patients having an isolated increase of systolic or diastolic or high borderline BP values or cardiovascular disease.

CONCLUSION

Physicians provided reasons for not intensifying treatment in poorly controlled patients in only 30 % of instances. Main reasons for not intensifying treatment were borderline BP values, co-morbidity, suspected white coat effect, or perceived difficulty achieving target. nJCI was associated with high borderline BP values and cardiovascular disease.

Therapy of hypertension in African Americans

Hypertension in African Americans is a major clinical and public health problem because of the high prevalence and premature onset of elevated blood pressure (BP) as well as the high burden of co-morbid factors that lead to pharmacological treatment resistance (obesity, diabetes mellitus, depressed glomerular filtration rate, and albuminuria). BP control rates are lower in African Americans, especially men, than in other major race/ethnicity-sex groups; overall control rates are 29.9% for non-Hispanic Black men. Optimal antihypertensive treatment requires a comprehensive approach that encompasses multifactorial lifestyle modifications (weight loss, salt and alcohol restriction, and increased physical activity) plus drug therapy. The most important initial step in the evaluation of patients with elevated BP is to appropriately risk stratify them to allow determination of whether they are truly hypertensive and also to determine their goal BP levels. The overwhelming majority of African American hypertensive patients will require combination antihypertensive drug therapy to maintain BP consistently below target levels. The emphasis is now appropriately on utilizing the most effective drug combinations for the control of BP and protection of target-organs in this high-risk population. When BP is >15/10 mmHg above goal levels, combination drug therapy is recommended. The preferred combination is a calcium antagonist/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or, alternatively, in edematous and/or volume overload states, a thiazide diuretic/angiotensin-converting inhibitor.

The relationship of ethnicity to the prevalence and management of hypertension and associated chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

The effect of ethnicity on the prevalence and management of hypertension and associated chronic kidney (CKD) disease in the UK is unknown.

METHODS

We performed a cross sectional study of 49,203 adults with hypertension to establish the prevalence and management of hypertension and associated CKD by ethnicity. Routinely collected data from general practice hypertension registers in 148 practices in London between 1/1/07 and 31/3/08 were analysed.

RESULTS

The crude prevalence of hypertension was 9.5%, and by ethnicity was 8.2% for White, 11.3% for South Asian and 11.1% for Black groups. The prevalence of CKD stages 3-5 among those with hypertension was 22%. Stage 3 CKD was less prevalent in South Asian groups (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 - 0.88) compared to Whites (reference population) with Black groups having similar rates to Whites. The prevalence of severe CKD (stages 4-5) was higher in the South Asian group (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.17 - 2.0) compared to Whites, but did not differ between Black and White groups. In the whole hypertension cohort, achievement of target blood pressure (< 140/90 mmHg) was better in South Asian (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.28 - 1.60) and worse in Black groups (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.74 - 0.84) compared to White patients. Hypertensive medication was prescribed unequally among ethnic groups for any degree of blood pressure control.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variations exist in the prevalence of hypertension and associated CKD and its management between the major ethnic groups. Among those with CKD less than 50% were treated to a target BP of ≤ 130/80 mmHg. Rates of ACE-I/ARB prescribing for those with CKD were less than optimal, with the lowest rates (58.5%) among Black groups.

Triple therapy with olmesartan medoxomil, amlodipine besylate, and hydrochlorothiazide in adult patients with hypertension: The TRINITY multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-week, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND

Patients with hypertension may require a combination of > or =2 antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure (BP) control.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether a triple combination of olmesartan medoxomil (OM), amlodipine besylate (AML), and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) had a clinically significant benefit compared with dual combinations of the individual components in patients with moderate to severe hypertension.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, doubleblind, parallel-group study in which triple combination treatment with OM 40 mg + AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg was compared with dual combinations of the individual components-OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg in fixed-dose combination, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg in fixed-dose combination, and AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg-in patients aged > or =18 years who had a mean seated BP > or =140/100 mm Hg or > or =160/90 mm Hg. The study consisted of a 3-week washout period with no study medication and a 12-week double-blind treatment period. In the first 2 weeks of the double-blind treatment period, all patients were randomized to receive dual combination treatment or placebo. All patients assigned to a dual combination treatment group continued the assigned treatment until week 4, and all patients assigned to placebo were switched at week 2 to receive 1 of the dual combination treatments until week 4. At week 4, patients either continued dual combination treatment or switched to triple combination treatment until week 12. The primary end point was the change in seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) from baseline to week 12; SeDBP reduction of > or =2 mm Hg was considered a clinically significant benefit. Secondary efficacy end points included the change in seated systolic BP (SeSBP) at week 12 and the percentages of patients achieving BP targets of <140/90 mm Hg, <120/80 mm Hg, SeSBP <140 mm Hg, and SeDBP <90 mm Hg at week 12. The tolerability of the treatments was also evaluated based on adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory evaluations (chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis), physical examinations, and 12-lead ECGs.

RESULTS

The 2492 randomized patients (52.9% male, 66.8% white, 30.4% black) had a mean (SD) age of 55.1 (10.9) years and a mean weight of 96.0 (22.9) kg. Diabetes was present in 15.5% of the population, chronic cardiovascular disease in 9.1%, and chronic kidney disease in 4.1%. At baseline, the mean SeBP was 168.5/100.9 mm Hg. At week 12, triple combination treatment was associated with significantly greater least squares mean reductions in SeBP compared with the dual combinations (SeDBP: -21.8 vs -15.1 to -18.0 mm Hg, respectively [P < 0.001]; SeSBP: -37.1 vs -27.5 to -30.0 mm Hg [P < 0.001]). A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving triple combination treatment reached BP targets compared with the dual combinations at week 12 (P < 0.001). The proportions of patients reaching the BP target of <140/90 mm Hg at week 12 was 69.9% in the triple combination treatment group and 52.9%, 53.4%, and 41.1% in the treatment groups receiving OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, and AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg, respectively (P < 0.001, triple combination vs each dual combination). The incidence of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) was 58.4% for triple combination treatment and 51.7% to 58.9% for the dual combinations; most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. The most common TEAEs in the triple combination treatment group were dizziness (9.9%), peripheral edema (7.7%), and headache (6.4%). In total, 52 patients (2.3%) discontinued the study due to TEAEs-6 (1.0%) in the OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg group, 12 (2.1%) in the OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg group, 11 (2.0%) in the AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg group, and 23 (4.0%) in the OM 40 mg + AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg group. Thirty-two patients (1.4%)-4 (0.7%), 5 (0.9%), 5 (0.9%), and 18 (3.1%) in the respective treatment groups-discontinued the study due to drug-related TEAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

In these adult patients with moderate to severe hypertension, triple combination treatment with OM 40 mg + AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg was associated with significant BP reductions compared with dual combinations of the individual components. All treatments were generally well tolerated. ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT00649389.

Management of high blood pressure in Blacks: an update of the International Society on Hypertension in Blacks consensus statement

Since the first International Society on Hypertension in Blacks consensus statement on the "Management of High Blood Pressure in African American" in 2003, data from additional clinical trials have become available. We reviewed hypertension and cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment guidelines, pharmacological hypertension clinical end point trials, and blood pressure-lowering trials in blacks. Selected trials without significant black representation were considered. In this update, blacks with hypertension are divided into 2 risk strata, primary prevention, where elevated blood pressure without target organ damage, preclinical cardiovascular disease, or overt cardiovascular disease for whom blood pressure consistently <135/85 mm Hg is recommended, and secondary prevention, where elevated blood pressure with target organ damage, preclinical cardiovascular disease, and/or a history of cardiovascular disease, for whom blood pressure consistently <130/80 mm Hg is recommended. If blood pressure is ≤10 mm Hg above target levels, monotherapy with a diuretic or calcium channel blocker is preferred. When blood pressure is >15/10 mm Hg above target, 2-drug therapy is recommended, with either a calcium channel blocker plus a renin-angiotensin system blocker or, alternatively, in edematous and/or volume-overload states, with a thiazide diuretic plus a renin-angiotensin system blocker. Effective multidrug therapeutic combinations through 4 drugs are described. Comprehensive lifestyle modifications should be initiated in blacks when blood pressure is ≥115/75 mm Hg. The updated International Society on Hypertension in Blacks consensus statement on hypertension management in blacks lowers the minimum target blood pressure level for the lowest-risk blacks, emphasizes effective multidrug regimens, and de-emphasizes monotherapy.

Hypertension in special populations: chronic kidney disease, organ transplant recipients, pregnancy, autonomic dysfunction, racial and ethnic populations

The benefits of appropriate blood pressure (BP) control include reductions in proteinuria and possibly a slowing of the progressive loss of kidney function. Overall, medication therapy to lower BP during pregnancy should be used mainly for maternal safety because of the lack of data to support an improvement in fetal outcome. The major goal of hypertension treatment in those with baroreceptor dysfunction is to avoid the precipitous, severe BP elevations that characteristically occur during emotional stimulation. The treatment of hypertension in African Americans optimally consists of comprehensive lifestyle modifications along with pharmacologic treatments, most often with combination, not single-drug, therapy.

Role of triple fixed combination valsartan, amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide in controlling blood pressure

Hypertension is one of the main risk factors for the development of cardiovascular diseases and the search for new therapeutic strategies aimed at optimizing its control remains an ongoing research and clinical challenge. In recent years, there has been a marked increase in the use of combinations of antihypertensive drugs with complementary mechanisms of action, with the aims of reducing blood pressure levels more rapidly and vigorously than strategies employing monotherapy and improving treatment compliance and adhesion. Therefore, as recommended by the 2009 reappraisal of the European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, the use of a triple combination that combines a calcium channel blocker, an angiotensin II receptor blocker and a thiazide diuretic seems a reasonable and efficacious combination for the management of hypertensive patients with moderate, high or very high risk. This article reviews the clinical trials carried out with the fixed combination of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide at the doses recommended for each drug in monotherapy. The data show that this combination achieved greater reductions in mean sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressure than amlodipine, valsartan or hydrochlorothiazide in monotherapy, with favorable pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles. The triple combination at high single doses should be used with caution in elderly patients and those with renal or liver failure. Although the tolerability and safety of the triple combination are good, the most-frequently reported adverse effects were peripheral edema, headache and dizziness. Analytical alterations were consistent with the already-known biochemical effects of amlodipine, valsartan or hydrochlorothiazide in monotherapy. In summary, triple-therapy with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in a single pill contributes additional advantages to fixed -combinations of two drugs, achieving a greater and more rapid reduction in blood pressure levels in a safe, well-tolerated manner.

Individualizing hypertension treatment with impedance cardiography: a meta-analysis of published trials

Objective: Hypertension affects 73 million Americans and costs the US healthcare system over $73 billion annually. Despite increasing awareness of the consequences of uncontrolled hypertension, numerous antihypertensive pharmacologic clinical studies and consistent updates to hypertension guidelines, control rates are suboptimal and have not met national goals. Among treated hypertensives, only 45% of women and 51% of men have reached blood pressure (BP) levels below 140/90 mmHg. Individualization of antihypertensive regimens with hemodynamic information from impedance cardiography (ICG) has been advocated to further improve hypertension control rates. We therefore undertook a quantitative analysis of the trials evaluating the role of ICG as an adjunct to therapeutic decision-making in the treatment of hypertension and the attainment of BP control.

Methods: Five studies comprising a total population of 759 patients met the inclusion criteria. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving a total of 268 patients and three single-arm prospective trials with 491 patients were evaluated using ICG data to guide therapeutic decision-making in the treatment of hypertensive patients.

Results: Significant benefit was found in both RCTs for ICG-guided BP treatment. The combined odds ratio for the two trials was 2.41 (95% CI = 1.44-4.05, p = 0.0008), in favor of ICG treatment, meaning that it was more than twice as likely to achieve BP success when using ICG than if ICG was not used. Success attainment of goal BP of <140/90 mmHg was 67% in the ICG-guided arms of the combined randomized trials. Overall success in the single-arm prospective trials of ICG-guided BP treatment was a similar 68%.

Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis confirm the value of using ICG-derived hemodynamic data as an adjunct to therapeutic decision-making in the treatment of hypertension. The data reviewed here demonstrate that ICG-based approaches are in keeping with previously advocated strategies incorporating patient-individualized drug regimens, evidence-based medicine, and practical, easy to apply, cost-effective principles to further improve hypertension control rates.

Valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide for first-line therapy in hypertension

Goal blood pressure levels are only being achieved in approximately a third of hypertensive patients, which suggests that there is a need for new and/or improved approaches to the treatment of hypertension. The majority of patients with hypertension require combination therapy to control their blood pressure. The use of a combination of drugs with complementary mechanisms of action may provide greater efficacy and tolerability compared with monotherapy, and may allow more rapid achievement of target blood pressure. Moreover, the use of single-pill combinations has the potential to increase adherence and persistence, and reduce costs. The single-pill combination of valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide was recently approved by the US FDA for first-line use in hypertensive patients who are likely to need multiple drugs to achieve their blood pressure goals. The focus of this article is on those randomized, double-blind trials in which this combination was administered as first-line therapy in patients with essential hypertension.

Blood pressure responder rates versus goal rates: which metric matters?

Reducing blood pressure (BP) to guideline-recommended goals associated with reductions in cardiovascular risk is central to effective hypertension management. In addition to measuring BP reduction, clinical trials of antihypertensive agents should assess the percentage of patients responding to treatment. The Food and Drug Administration's defined rate of response required for drug approval is a reduction in diastolic BP (DBP) to <90 mmHg and/or a DBP reduction of > or = 10 mmHg. Consequently, some patients may be counted as responders even if they have not reached DBP <90 mmHg. An antihypertensive agent's effectiveness may be better assessed by the proportion of patients who achieve recommended BP goals. This article analyzes the frequency of response rates versus goal rates as endpoints in randomized trials since January 2001. Data showed that goal rates, especially combined systolic BP (SBP)/DBP goal rates, are consistently lower than response rates in studies evaluating both endpoints. Goal rates incorporating both SBP and DBP, or having a focus on SBP for individuals >50 years of age, provide the most clinically relevant information and are a more clinically relevant metric of an agent's ability to reduce BP than DBP alone.

Triple antihypertensive therapy with amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide: a randomized clinical trial

Many patients with hypertension require > or =3 agents to achieve target blood pressure (BP). The efficacy/safety of the dual combinations of valsartan (Val)/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and amlodipine (Aml)/Val in hypertension are well established. This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy/safety of triple therapy with Aml/Val/HCTZ for moderate or severe hypertension (mean sitting systolic BP: > or =145 mm Hg; mean sitting diastolic BP: > or =100 mm Hg). The study included a single-blind, placebo run-in period, followed by double-blind treatment for 8 weeks; patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups titrated to Aml/Val/HCTZ 10/320/25 mg, Val/HCTZ 320/25 mg, Aml/Val 10/320 mg, or Aml/HCTZ 10/25 mg once daily. Dual-therapy recipients received half of the target doses of both agents for the first 2 weeks, titrating to target doses during week 3. Those on triple therapy received Val/HCTZ 160.0/12.5 mg during week 1, Aml/Val/HCTZ 5.0/160.0/12.5 mg during week 2, and target doses of all 3 of the agents during week 3. Of the 4285 patients enrolled, 2271 were randomly assigned to treatment, and 2060 completed the study. Triple therapy was significantly superior to all of the dual therapies in reducing mean sitting systolic BP and mean sitting diastolic BP from baseline to end point (all P<0.0001). Significantly more patients on triple therapy achieved overall BP control (<140/90 mm Hg; P<0.0001) and systolic and diastolic control (P< or =0.0002) compared with each dual therapy. Aml/Val/HCTZ was well tolerated. The benefits of triple therapy over dual therapy were observed regardless of age, sex, race, ethnicity, or baseline mean sitting systolic BP. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the efficacy/safety of treating moderate and severe hypertension with Aml/Val/HCTZ 10/320/25 mg.

Efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with amlodipine/valsartan compared with amlodipine monotherapy in black patients with stage 2 hypertension: the EX-STAND study

The strategy of initiating hypertension treatment with combination versus single-drug therapy was formally tested in a prospective, double-blind, parallel-group trial in blacks with stage 2 hypertension (mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP) >or=160 and <200 mm Hg). Participants were randomized equally to amlodipine/valsartan (A/V) (n=286) or amlodipine (A) monotherapy (n=286). After 2 weeks, there was forced titration of A/V 5/160 mg to A/V 10/160 mg and of A 5 to A 10 mg followed by 10 additional weeks of treatment. If SBP was >or=130 mm Hg at week 4, the protocol allowed optional titration of A/V to the 10/320 mg dose and, at week 8, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg was optionally added to both A/V and A if SBP >or=130 mm Hg. Amlodipine/valsartan at week 8 lowered MSSBP last observation carried forward significantly>A (33.3 vs 26.6 mm Hg, P<0.0001). Lowering of MSSBP with A/V significantly exceeded that of A in several specified subgroups-the elderly (>or=65 years), isolated systolic hypertension, and those with body mass index (BMI) >or=30 kg/m(2). More patients treated with A/V than A achieved BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) both at weeks 8 (49.8 vs 30.2%; P<0.0001) and 12 (57.2 vs 35.9%; P<0.0001). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated. In conclusion, the strategy of initiating combination antihypertensive drug therapy in blacks with stage 2 hypertension with amlodipine /valsartan achieves greater and quicker reductions in BP as well as significantly higher BP control rates than starting treatment with amlodipine monotherapy.