The fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine was superior in central aortic blood pressure reduction compared with perindopril/amlodipine: a randomized, double-blind trial in patients with hypertension

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in the Management of Hypertension: A Real-World Perspective and Current Recommendations

Hypertension represents a major common cardiovascular risk factor. Optimal control of high blood pressure levels is recommended to reduce the global burden of hypertensive-mediated organ damage and cardiovascular (CV) events. Among the first-line drugs recommended in international guidelines, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system antagonists [angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)] have long represented a rational, effective, and safe anti-hypertensive pharmacological strategy. In fact, current US and European guidelines recommend ACEi and ARBs as a suitable first choice for hypertension treatment together with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide diuretics. Different studies have demonstrated that ARBs and ACEi exert a comparable effect in lowering blood pressure levels. However, ARBs are characterized by better pharmacological tolerability. Most importantly, the clinical evidence supports a relevant protective role of ARBs toward the CV and renal damage development, as well as the occurrence of major adverse CV events, in hypertensive patients. Moreover, a neutral metabolic effect has been reported upon ARBs administration, in contrast to other antihypertensive agents, such as beta-blockers and diuretics. These properties highlight the use of ARBs as an excellent pharmacological strategy to manage hypertension and its dangerous consequences. The present review article summarizes the available evidence regarding the beneficial effects and current recommendations of ARBs in hypertension. The specific properties performed by these agents in various clinical subsets are discussed, also including an overview of their implications for the current COVID-19 pandemic.

A Prospective Randomized, Double-Blind, Multi-Center, Phase III Clinical Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Olmesartan/Amlodipine plus Rosuvastatin Combination Treatment in Patients with Concomitant Hypertension and Dyslipidemia: A LEISURE Study

BACKGROUND

This study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of an olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin combination treatment for patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia.

METHODS

Patients with both hypertension and dyslipidemia aged 20-80 were enrolled from 36 tertiary hospitals in Korea from January 2017 to April 2018. Patients were randomized to three groups in a 1:1:0.5 ratio, olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin (olme/amlo/rosu) or olmesartan plus rosuvastatin (olme/rosu) or olmesartan/amlodipine single pill (olme/amlo) combination. The primary endpoints were change of sitting systolic blood pressure (sitSBP) from baseline in the olme/amlo/rosu vs. olme/rosu groups and the percentage change of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from baseline in the olme/amlo/rosu vs. olme/amlo groups after 8 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 265 patients were randomized, 106 to olme/amlo/rosu, 106 to olme/rosu and 53 to olme/amlo groups. Baseline characteristics among the three groups did not differ. The mean sitSBP change was significantly larger in the olme/amlo/rosu group with -24.30 ± 12.62 mmHg (from 153.58 ± 10.90 to 129.28 ± 13.58) as compared to the olme/rosu group, -9.72 ± 16.27 mmHg (from 153.71 ± 11.10 to 144.00 ± 18.44 mmHg). The difference in change of sitSBP between the two groups was -14.62± 1.98 mmHg with significance (95% CI -18.51 to -10.73, p < 0.0001). The mean LDL-C reduced significantly in the olme/amlo/rosu group, -52.31 ± 16.63% (from 154.52 ± 30.84 to 72.72 ± 26.08 mg/dL) as compared to the olme/amlo group with no change, -2.98 ± 16.16% (from 160.42 ± 32.05 to 153.81 ± 31.57 mg/dL). Significant difference in change was found in LDL-C between the two groups with -50.10 ± 2.73% (95% CI -55.49 to -44.71, p < 0.0001). Total adverse drug reaction rates were 10.48%, 5.66% and 3.7% in the olme/amlo/rosu, olme/rosu and olme/amlo groups, respectively with no statistical significance among the three groups. Serious adverse drug reactions did not occur.

CONCLUSIONS

Olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin combination treatment for patients with both hypertension and dyslipidemia is effective and safe as compared to either olmesartan plus rosuvastatin or olmesartan plus amlodipine treatment.

Differential Effects of Combination of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors on Central Aortic Blood Pressure: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study in Hypertensive Outpatients

Background

Central aortic blood pressure (CABP) indices, central hemodynamics, and arterial stiffness are better predictors of cardiovascular events as compared with brachial cuff pressure measurements alone. The present study is aimed at assessing the effects of different antihypertensive drug combination regimens involving renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on CABP indices in Indian patients with hypertension.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional, single-center study conducted in patients treated for hypertension for >6 weeks using different treatment regimens involving the combination of RAAS inhibitors with drugs from other classes. CABP indices, vascular age, arterial stiffness, and central hemodynamics were measured in patients using the noninvasive Agedio B900 device (IEM, Stolberg, Germany) and compared between different treatment regimens.

Results

A total of 199 patients with a mean age of 54.22 ± 10.15 years were enrolled, where 68.8% had hypertension for over three years and 50.25% had their systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 140 mmHg. Combination treatment with angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) was given to 77.9% and to 20.1% patients, respectively. The mean vascular age was higher than the actual age (58.13 ± 12.43 vs. 54.22 ± 10.15, p = 0.001). The SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) levels in patients treated with ACEI-based combinations were lower than those in patients treated with ARB-based combinations (p < 0.05). The mean central pulse pressure amplification, augmentation pressure, and augmentation index were lower in patients treated with ACEI-based combinations than those treated with other treatments (p = 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, patients given perindopril and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) or diuretics had significantly lower CABP and pulse wave velocity than those given other treatments (p < 0.05). A total of 6.5% patients experienced any side effects.

Conclusion

The majority of central hemodynamic parameters, including vascular age, were found to improve more effectively in patients treated with ACEIs than with ARBs. Our results indicate a gap between routine clinical practice and evidence-based guidelines in Indian settings and identify a need to reevaluate the current antihypertensive prescription strategy.

Should Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ever Be Used for the Management of Hypertension?

Purpose of Review

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are commonly used anti-hypertensive medications in a number of clinical settings. They are often used interchangeably, but we pose the provocative question as to whether they should be. We review the literature to evaluate for any differences in efficacy between the two classes in order to determine if the greater side effects associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are offset by any advantageous effects on outcomes to warrant their use over angiotensin receptor blockers.

Recent Findings

In many clinical scenarios, the data supports similar efficacy between ACE inhibitors and ARBs, while in a minority of others, there are murky signals from previous trials that suggest ACE inhibitors may be better. However, when reviewing the literature in its entirety, and taking into account recently published pooled analysis and head to head trials, it is reasonable to conclude that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have similar efficacy. This is in contrast to data on adverse effects, which consistently favors the use of ARBs.

Summary

From the available data, it is reasonable to conclude that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have equal efficacy yet unequal adverse effects. It is in this context that we take the provocative stance that ACE inhibitors should not be used to treat hypertension.

Economic evaluation of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination for hypertension treatment in China

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination vs olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine single drug, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients from payer perspective in China.Methods: A Markov model was constructed, which included five health states of hypertensive patients who are aged 35-84 years at baseline and free of cardiovascular disease. Clinical data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Epidemiology data, adverse events (AEs), cost, and utility data were obtained from the literature. The cost associated with AEs was estimated based on the cost of same symptoms of hypertensive patients in an electric medical record database. The model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, total costs per patient in a 20-year time horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the main parameters to test the robustness of the model.Results: Compared to olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination led to fewer CVD events and deaths; resulted in an incremental cost of ¥-5,439 ($-791.36), ¥6,530 ($950.09), and ¥-1,019 ($-148.26) and gained additional QALYs of 0.052, 0.094, and 0.037 per patient, respectively. Compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was dominant. Compared with amlodipine alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold, indicating the olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was a cost-effective option for hypertensive patients in China. The 10-years' time horizon scenario analysis showed similar results to the 20-years' time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the model results.Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination confers better health outcomes and costs less compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, and is cost-effective compared to amlodipine for hypertension treatment in China.

Central blood pressure for the management of hypertension: Is it a practical clinical tool in current practice?

Since noninvasive central blood pressure (BP) measuring devices are readily available, central BP has gained growing attention regarding its clinical application in the management of hypertension. The disagreement between central and peripheral BP has long been recognized. Some previous studies showed that noninvasive central BP may be better than the conventional brachial BP in association with target organ damages and long-term cardiovascular outcomes. Recent studies further suggest that the central BP strategy for confirming a diagnosis of hypertension may be more cost-effective than the conventional strategy, and guidance of hypertension management with central BP may result in less use of medications to achieve BP control. Despite the use of central BP being promising, more randomized controlled studies comparing central BP-guided therapeutic strategies with conventional care for cardiovascular events reduction are required because noninvasive central and brachial BP measures are conveniently available. In this brief review, the rationale supporting the utility of central BP in clinical practice and relating challenges are summarized.

Effect and safety of LCZ696 in the treatment of hypertension: A meta-analysis of 9 RCT studies

BACKGROUND

LCZ696 has been introduced in patients with hypertension in several trials. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect and safety of LCZ696 in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect and safety of LCZ696 in hypertension patients. The last search date was October 31, 2018.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs with 6765 subjects were finally included, in which 8 trials compared the effect and safety between LCZ696 and angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARBs). Evidences showed LCZ696, compared with ARBs, achieved a better blood pressure control rate (OR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.14-1.35), specifically, LCZ696 were better at reducing systolic blood pressure [WMD -4.11 mmHg, 95% CI: (-5.13, -3.08) mmHg], diastolic blood pressure [WMD -1.79 mmHg, 95% CI: (-2.22, -1.37) mmHg], mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure [WMD -3.24 mmHg, 95% CI: (-4.48, -1.99) mmHg] and mean 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure [WMD -1.25 mmHg, 95% CI: (-1.81, -0.69) mmHg]. There was no difference in the events of adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% CI: 0.39-1.09), serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52-1.22) and discontinuation of treatment for any adverse events (RR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.56-1.11) between LCZ696 group and ARB/placebo group, except LCZ696 reduced the rate of headaches (RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.48-0.99) while increased cough (RR 2.12, 95% CI: 1.11-4.04; P = .02; I = 25%).

CONCLUSION

Our finding provides evidence that LCZ 696 was more effective than ARB on blood pressure control and was safe enough in patients with hypertension.

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Versus Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors for the Treatment of Arterial Hypertension and the Role of Olmesartan

Blood pressure lowering by all classes of antihypertensive drugs is accompanied by significant reductions of stroke and major cardiovascular (CV) events. Drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, such as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), showed similar benefit on major CV events to other antihypertensive medications. In real-world practice, ARBs reduced by 10% the incidence of CV mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and provided superior protection against CV events than ACEIs in high-risk patients. Despite similar antihypertensive properties and a favourable safety profile for both ACEIs and ARBs, evidence indicates that patients treated with ARBs have lower rates of withdrawal for adverse events and greater persistence to therapy than those treated with ACEIs. Among ARBs, olmesartan is one of the latest generation compounds introduced in clinical practice for treating hypertension: head-to-head comparative trials suggest that the efficacy of olmesartan is superior to that of commonly prescribed ACEIs (ramipril and perindopril). The drug, administered as a monotherapy or in combination with a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker or a thiazide diuretic, has proved to be effective in maintaining blood pressure stability over 24 h, with a favourable safety profile and low discontinuation rates. These properties are pivotal for considering olmesartan as a useful antihypertensive agent especially for high-risk patients (e.g. elderly, diabetics, patients with metabolic syndrome).Funding: Article preparation and open access fee were funded by Menarini International Operations Luxembourg S.A. (M.I.O.L.).

The Role of Central Blood Pressure Monitoring in the Management of Hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Central blood pressure is a novel predictor of cardiovascular risk that can be measured in the clinical setting using currently available technology. This paper will review current available methods of central blood pressure monitoring as well as its impact in cardiac and renal disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Both aortic and carotid systolic blood pressure are independently associated with cardiovascular mortality and serious cardiac events. Furthermore, studies show that systolic aortic blood pressure has been shown to be superior predictor of cardiovascular as compared to brachial blood pressure. Inhibitors of the renin angiotensin axis may have a beneficial effect on central blood pressure; however, long term studies evaluating the impact of lowering central blood pressure on clinical outcomes are lacking. Central blood pressure is a good predictor of cardiovascular risk. As more studies emerge demonstrating the value of central blood pressure as a therapeutic target, it is possible that targeting central blood pressure may become an important part of the armamentarium to lower cardiovascular risk.

Perindopril arginine and amlodipine besylate for hypertension: a safety evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Controlling blood pressure is a global health priority; single-pill antihypertensive combinations may improve adherence, persistence, and outcomes. Areas covered: A novel combination of perindopril arginine and amlodipine besylate was recently approved. A systematic review of the literature revealed its most common adverse effects as: peripheral edema (depending on the dose of amlodipine, but attenuated by perindopril), cough, dizziness and hypotension. Dose-dependent hyperkalemia, impairment of renal function (especially in renovascular hypertension), angioedema, and teratogenicity were derived from experience with other ACE-inhibitors. Expert opinion: Substantial clinical trial experience with amlodipine or perindopril suggests that these two agents effectively lower blood pressure, and can reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, as in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial. The incidence of adverse effects reported in clinical trials is lower than expected, likely due to exclusion of subjects previously exposed to its components; the nature of open-label, uncontrolled observational studies; and difficulty in recognizing and measuring cough and pedal edema. This new formulation of perindopril arginine protects its ethyl ester, without requiring physical separation from amlodipine in a single tablet, and is less hygroscopic than perindopril erbumine. These and other attributes may make this combination an attractive addition to the antihypertensive armamentarium.

Management of Hypertension Using Olmesartan Alone or in Combination

Hypertension is one of the most significant and consistent risk factors for many cardiovascular diseases. The global prevalence of hypertension has dramatically increased over recent years. Life-style and genetic factors are generally considered to be primarily responsible for the incidence of hypertension. Concerning the high morbidity rate, setting up an updated standard for hypertensive patients becomes indispensable. According to the widely accepted standard treatments for hypertension, these four basic principles should be taken into account: low dosage; medication should provide long term-control; combination therapies are becoming common; personalized treatments are a newer approach. In most patients with hypertension, adequate control of BP can be achieved with combined therapy. Therefore, antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms are now recommended. In this review, we focus on the pharmacology, antihypertensive efficacy, and adverse events (AEs) of olmesartan medoxomil, either alone or in combination with other antihypertensive medications. In conclusion, olmesartan medoxomil, is an angiotensin II receptor blocker with an excellent efficacy in the reduction and stabilization of blood pressure. When combined with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and diuretics, olmesartan medoxomil has a better effect on controlling BP and reducing AEs in patients.

Comparative Study of the Efficacy of Olmesartan/Amlodipine vs. Perindopril/Amlodipine in Peripheral and Central Blood Pressure Parameters After Missed Dose in Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Central aortic blood pressure (CBP) and CBP-derived parameters are independent predictors of cardiovascular risk. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors plus calcium channel blockers are the recommended first-line treatments in hypertensive diabetic patients; however, the effect in reducing CBP when a dose is skipped has not been established yet. The aim was to determine whether the fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine (OLM/AML) provides equal efficacy and safety as the perindopril/AML (PER/AML) combination in reducing CBP, augmentation index (AIx), and pulse wave velocity (PWV) when a drug dose is missed.

METHODS

In this noninferiority, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group, controlled design trial, 88 patients received either OLM 20-40mg/AML 5-10mg (41 patients) or PER 4-8mg/AML 5-10mg (47 patients) for 24 weeks. The main endpoint was the aortic systolic BP (SBP) after 24 weeks of treatment at 48 hours from the last administration.

RESULTS

The OLM/AML combination reached the noninferiority criteria in reducing central systolic BP after 24 weeks of treatment and after the missed dose, compared to the PER/AML combination (-17 and -8mm Hg, respectively). Peripheral BP, AIx, and PWV were significantly lower in both groups after 24 weeks of treatment and 48 hours after the missed dose, observing a trend to a greater reduction in CBP-derived parameters in the OLM/AML group.

CONCLUSIONS

The OLM/AML combination is safe, well tolerated, and not inferior to the combination of PER/AML in lowering CBP and CBP-derived parameters in diabetic patients. OLM/AML provides longer-lasting efficacy in terms of CBP reduction compared to PER/AML.

Perindopril arginine + amlodipine for the treatment of hypertension in the USA

INTRODUCTION

Controlling blood pressure is a global health priority; single-pill combinations of antihypertensive agents are often prescribed to improve adherence, persistence, and outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

A novel preparation of perindopril arginine and amlodipine besylate was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on 21 Jan 2015, based primarily on a 837-subject, 6-week, randomized, multicenter, prospective, clinical trial. The maximal marketed dose of the combination (14/10 mg daily) lowered both systolic and diastolic blood pressure significantly more than either monotherapy, with a reduction in adverse effects (especially ankle edema), compared to amlodipine alone.

EXPERT OPINION

Substantial clinical trial experience with amlodipine or perindopril suggests that these two agents effectively lower blood pressure, and may reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. In the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial, hypertensive subjects randomized to receive these two drugs (in sequence) had a significantly lower incidence of several types of clinical events, compared to those who received atenolol ± bendroflumethiazide. The new formulation of perindopril arginine protects its ethyl ester, without requiring physical separation from amlodipine in a single pill, and is less hydroscopic than perindopril erbumine. These and other attributes may make this combination an attractive addition to the antihypertensive armamentarium.

Perindopril/amlodipine (Prestalia(®)): a review in hypertension

Perindopril, an ACE inhibitor, and amlodipine, a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, are established antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action. Recently, a once-daily, orally-administered, fixed-dose combination (FDC) of perindopril arginine plus amlodipine besylate (Prestalia(®); hereafter referred to as perindopril/amlodipine FDC) was approved in the USA for the treatment of hypertension. This article reviews the efficacy and tolerability of perindopril/amlodipine FDC and briefly summarizes the agent's pharmacologic properties. As demonstrated in short-term randomized controlled trials, perindopril/amlodipine FDC was significantly more effective in reducing blood pressure (BP) than monotherapy with either of the component drugs, and it appeared to be more effective than an up-titration scheme using valsartan and valsartan/amlodipine. The FDC agent was generally well tolerated, with the most common adverse events (peripheral edema, cough, headache, and dizziness) being consistent with the well-defined tolerability profiles of the individual component drugs. Furthermore, perindopril/amlodipine FDC was associated with a numerically lower incidence of peripheral edema compared with amlodipine monotherapy. Thus, perindopril/amlodipine FDC represents a useful option for the treatment of hypertension, including as initial therapy for patients likely to require multiple drugs to achieve their BP targets.