Zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide and irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in previously treated and uncontrolled diabetic and non-diabetic essential hypertensive patients

Hydrogen sulfide-dependent microvascular vasodilation is improved following chronic sulfhydryl-donating antihypertensive pharmacotherapy in adults with hypertension

Hypertension is characterized by systemic microvascular endothelial dysfunction, in part due to a functional absence of hydrogen sulfide (H₂S)-mediated endothelium-dependent dilation. Treatment with a sulfhydryl-donating ACE inhibitor (SH-ACE inhibitor) improves endothelial function in preclinical models of hypertension. To date, no studies have directly assessed the effects of SH-ACE-inhibitor treatment on H₂S-dependent vasodilation in humans with hypertension. We hypothesized that SH-ACE-inhibitor treatment would improve H₂S-mediated endothelium-dependent vasodilation. Ten adults with hypertension [1 woman and 9 men; 56 ± 9 yr; systolic blood pressure (SBP): 141 ± 8.5 mmHg; diastolic blood pressure (DBP): 90.3 ± 6 mmHg] were treated (16 wk) with the SH-ACE-inhibitor captopril. Red blood cell flux (laser-Doppler flowmetry) was measured continuously during graded intradermal microdialysis perfusion of the endothelium-dependent agonist acetylcholine (ACh; 10^-10 to 10^-1 M) alone (control) and in combination with an inhibitor of enzymatic H₂S production [10^-3 M aminooxyacetate (AOAA)] preintervention and postintervention. Cutaneous vascular conductance (CVC; flux/mmHg) was calculated and normalized to the site-specific maximal CVC (0.028 M sodium nitroprusside and local heat to 43°C). Area under the curve was calculated using the trapezoid method. The 16-wk SH-ACE-inhibitor treatment resulted in a reduction of blood pressure (systolic BP: 129 ± 10 mmHg; diastolic BP: 81 ± 9 mmHg, both P < 0.05). Preintervention, inhibition of H₂S production had no effect on ACh-induced vasodilation (316 ± 40 control vs. 322 ± 35 AU AOAA; P = 0.82). Captopril treatment improved ACh-induced vasodilation (316 ± 40 pre vs. 399 ± 55 AU post; P = 0.04) and increased the H₂S-dependent component of ACh-induced vasodilation (pre: -6.6 ± 65.1 vs. post: 90.2 ± 148.3 AU, P = 0.04). These data suggest that SH-ACE-inhibitor antihypertensive treatment improves cutaneous microvascular endothelium-dependent vasodilation in adults with hypertension, in part via H₂S-dependent mechanisms.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This is the first study to prospectively assess the effects of sulfhydryl antihypertensive treatment on microvascular endothelial function in adults with hypertension. Our data suggest that 16 wk of SH-ACE-inhibitor antihypertensive treatment improves cutaneous microvascular endothelium-dependent vasodilation in middle-aged adults with hypertension, in part via H₂S-dependent mechanisms.

Sex differences in antihypertensive drug use and blood pressure control

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is the most important modifiable cardiovascular risk factor. Epidemiological studies have shown the benefits of lowering blood pressure (BP), but BP control is a major challenge. Furthermore, there are significant sex differences in antihypertensive drug use and BP control. This study examined sex differences in antihypertensive drug use and BP control, with the aim of reducing the complications of hypertension and improving quality of life.

METHODS

The study was performed in our outpatient hypertension clinic, and included 1529 patients without secondary hypertension or comorbidities. The study, investigated BP control rates and patterns of antihypertensive drug use in male and female. All data were collected using structured questionnaires and patient measurements.

RESULTS

The study included 713 males and 816 females in this study. Fewer females had hypertension in the younger age group (16.2% vs 11.6%; p>0.05), but this difference disappeared in middle-aged (47.8% vs 49.9 %; p<0.05) and elderly age groups (36.0% vs 38.5%; p<0.05). BP control rates differed between males and females (35.6% in male, 31.9% in female, p<0.01). There was an overall difference in BP control rates between males and females (35.6% in males, 31.9% in females, p<0.01). In this aged 18-44 years, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) showed the best control rate in males, while calcium channel blockers (CCBs) were least effective (61.5% with ACEIs, 28.6% with CCBs; p<0.05). In this aged 45-64 years, diuretics (DUs) showed the best control rate in females, while CCBs were least effective (47.5% with DUs, 28.3% with CCBs; p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Sex plays an important role in BP control. In those aged 18-44 years, males using ACEIs showed best control rates. In those aged 45-64 years, females using DUs showed best control rates. Our study provides a basis with the selection of antihypertensive drugs according to sex and age.

Hypertension: a new treatment for an old disease? Targeting the immune system

Arterial hypertension represents a serious public health problem, being a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The availability of many antihypertensive therapeutic strategies still fails to adequately treat around 20% of hypertensive patients, who are considered resistant to conventional treatment. In the pathogenesis of hypertension, immune system mechanisms are activated and both the innate and adaptive immune responses play a crucial role. However, what, when and how the immune system is triggered during hypertension development is still largely undefined. In this context, this review highlights scientific advances in the manipulation of the immune system in order to attenuate hypertension and end-organ damage. Here, we discuss the potential use of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators as pharmacological tools to control the activation of the immune system, by non-specific and specific mechanisms, to treat hypertension and improve end-organ damage. Nevertheless, more clinical trials should be performed with these drugs to establish their therapeutic efficacy, safety and risk-benefit ratio in hypertensive conditions. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed section on Immune Targets in Hypertension. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v176.12/issuetoc.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in hypertension

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are drugs commonly used for the treatment of hypertension. However, studies on their comparative efficacy have not been extensively investigated. The current systematic review and network meta-analysis studied the comparative efficacy of the two antihypertensive treatment categories in reducing blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in essential hypertension patients. A literature search was carried out in Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for placebo- and active-controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trials, which had reported blood pressure effects, mortality, and/or morbidity. Blood pressure results were found in 30 studies with 7370 participants and 8 studies with 25,158 participants with mortality/morbidity results included in the analysis. The two drug classes had similar effectiveness in lowering systolic (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.59, 95% CI: -0.21 to 1.38) and diastolic blood pressure (WMD: 0.62, 95% CI: -0.06 to 1.30), all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)): 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14), fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR: 1.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.37) and stroke (RR: 1.13, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.46). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more helpful in the prevention and/or the hospitalization for heart failure than angiotensin receptor blockers (RR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers were similarly effective in decreasing blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in essential hypertension. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more protective in the advancement and/or hospitalization of the hypertensive patient for heart failure than angiotensin receptor blockers.

Efficacy of Zofenopril Alone or in Combination with Hydrochlorothiazide in Patients with Kidney Dysfunction

Hypertension and kidney disease often coexist, further increasing the risk of future cardiovascular events. Treatment of hypertensive adults with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor in case of concomitant kidney disease may slow disease progression. The third-generation liphophilic angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor zofenopril, administered alone or combined with a thiazide diuretic, has proved to be effective in lowering blood pressure in hypertensive patients and to reduce the risk of fatal and non-fatal events in post-acute myocardial infarction and heart failure. In almost three-hundred hypertensive patients with kidney impairment zofenopril administered for 12 weeks showed a similar blood pressure-lowering effect irrespective of the stage of the disease, with larger effects in combination with a thiazide diuretic, particularly in patients with slightly or moderately impaired kidney function. In animal models, zofenopril produced a significant and long-lasting inhibition of kidney angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and prevented kidney morphological and functional alterations following kidney ischemia-reperfusion injury. Treatment of hypertensive patients for 18 weeks with a combination of zofenopril 30 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg resulted in a reduction in albumin creatinine ratio of 8.4 mg/g (49.6% reduction from baseline values) and no changes in glomerular filtration rate, variations in line with those obtained in the control group treated with a combination of irbesartan 150 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Thus, some preliminary evidence exists to support that relatively long-term treatment with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor zofenopril alone or combined with hydrochlorothiazide is effective in controlling blood pressure and may confer some kidney protection due to ACE inhibition properties.

Efficacy of zofenopril in combination with thiazide diuretics in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a pooled individual data analysis of four randomized, double-blind, controlled, prospective studies

Background

In the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-Term Evaluation (SMILE) studies, early administration of zofenopril after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was prognostically beneficial as compared to placebo and other angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), such as lisinopril and ramipril. Here, we investigated whether zofenopril efficacy could be affected by a concomitant use of thiazide diuretics (TDs).

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of pooled individual patient data from the SMILE studies. Patients treated with other diuretics than TDs were excluded. The primary study endpoint was the 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for CV causes, with or without TD.

Results

Among 2,995 patients, 263 (8.8%) were treated with a combination including a TD (TD+), whereas 2,732 (91.2%) were not treated with any diuretic (TD−). Proportions of subjects who were treated with TD were equally distributed (p=0.774) within the placebo, zofenopril, and other ACEIs groups. The 1-year risk of major cardiovascular events was similar in TD+ (18.3%) and TD− (16.8%) patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.74–1.45; p=0.838). After stratifying per concomitant treatment and TD, the 1-year risk of CV events was significantly lower with zofenopril than with placebo (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.55–0.88; p=0.002) and other ACEIs (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.46–0.74; p=0.0001). Treatment with ACEIs and TD as concomitant therapy was associated with a larger blood pressure (BP) reduction (p=0.0001 for systolic BP and p=0.045 for diastolic BP).

Conclusion

In post AMI patients, zofenopril maintained its positive impact on prognosis compared to placebo or other ACEIs, regardless concomitant TD administration. In this setting, TD shows advantages in managing the most difficult hypertensive patients.

Fixed-dose combination of zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide vs. irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients with established metabolic syndrome uncontrolled by previous monotherapy. The ZAMES study (Zofenopril in Advanced MEtabolic Syndrome)

OBJECTIVE

Whether all antihypertensive drugs are equally effective in patients with metabolic syndrome is still unclear. The goal of the Zofenopril in Advanced MEtabolic Syndrome (ZAMES) study was to investigate whether treatment with the fixed-dose combination of sulphydril-containing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide is at least as effective as that with the angiotensin receptor blocker irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in patients with metabolic syndrome and essential hypertension, uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy.

METHODS

We enrolled 721 patients in a multicenter, international (Italy and Romania), randomized, double-blind, parallel group, phase III study. Following a 1-week screening withdrawal period, 482 patients (mean age 59 ± 10 years, 53% men) bearing a SBP at least 140 mmHg and/or DBP at least 90 mmHg plus metabolic syndrome (ATP-III criteria) were randomly allocated to a fixed-dose combination of zofenopril 30 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or irbesartan 150 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg once daily for a cumulative period of 24 weeks. After 8 and 16 weeks, zofenopril and irbesartan doses were doubled in nonnormalized study participants. The study endpoint was the office DBP reduction at study end. In 20% of patients, an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed.

RESULTS

The prevalence of diabetes at baseline was significantly (P < 0.05) greater in the zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group (82%) than in the irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide (73%) group. Baseline-adjusted DBP reductions were superimposable (P = 0.370) with zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide [n = 231; 9.8 (95% confidence interval: 11.1, 8.4) mmHg] and irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide [n = 235; 10.4 (11.8, 9.0) mmHg]. The same was for SBP [17.0 (19.2, 14.8) mmHg zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide vs. 18.8 (21.0, 16.6) mmHg irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide, P = 0.113]. Rate of normalized and responder patients (SBP/DBP < 140/90 mmHg or SBP reduction more than 20 mmHg or DBP reduction more than 10 mmHg) did not differ at study end (65.8% and 77.5% zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide vs. 67.7% and 81.5% irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide; P = 0.695, P = 0.301). These results were confirmed in the 69 study participants undergoing ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (35 zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide; 34 irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide), with a comparable 24-h average BP reduction [BP difference between-treatment: SBP: 0.1 (-5.7, 5.9) mmHg, P = 0.975; DBP: -0.9 (-3.8, 2.0) mmHg, P = 0.541]. Both drugs attained similar BP reductions also in the last 6 h of the dosing interval [between-treatment difference SBP: 0.1 (-7.4, 7.5) mmHg P = 0.990; DBP: -0.9 (-4.4, 2.6) mmHg, P = 0.602]. Metabolic and renal indexes were not altered. Few patients were withdrawn for moderate adverse events (5% zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide; 5% irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study supporting the comparable antihypertensive and metabolic response to fixed-dose combinations of sulphydril-containing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (zofenopril) or angiotensin receptor blockers (Irbesartan) with a diuretic in patients with advanced metabolic syndrome and nonresponders to monotherapy. The results of this study can further improve the clinical management of high cardiovascular risk patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome, because these two drug combinations increase the number of available combinations, which may significantly improve patients' adherence in this special clinical condition that is frequently found in everyday practice.

Efficacy of Zofenopril vs. Irbesartan in Combination with a Thiazide Diuretic in Hypertensive Patients with Multiple Risk Factors not Controlled by a Previous Monotherapy: A Review of the Double-Blind, Randomized "Z" Studies

Combinations between an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) are among the recommended treatments for hypertensive patients uncontrolled by monotherapy. Four randomized, double-blind, parallel group studies with a similar design, including 1469 hypertensive patients uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy and with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor, compared the efficacy of a combination of a sulfhydryl ACE inhibitor (zofenopril at 30 or 60 mg) or an ARB (irbesartan at 150 or 300 mg) plus HCTZ 12.5 mg. The extent of blood pressure (BP)-lowering was assessed in the office and over 24 h. Pleiotropic features of the treatments were evaluated by studying their effect on systemic inflammation, organ damage, arterial stiffness, and metabolic biochemical parameters. Both treatments similarly reduced office and ambulatory BPs after 18-24 weeks. In the ZODIAC study a larger reduction in high sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP) was observed under zofenopril (-0.52 vs. +0.97 mg/dL under irbesartan, p = 0.001), suggesting a potential protective effect against the development of atherosclerosis. In the ZENITH study the rate of carotid plaque regression was significantly larger under zofenopril (32% vs. 16%; p = 0.047). In the diabetic patients of the ZAMES study, no adverse effects of treatments on blood glucose and lipids as well as an improvement of renal function were observed. In patients with isolated systolic hypertension of the ZEUS study, a slight and similar improvement in renal function and small reductions in pulse wave velocity (PWV), augmentation index (AI), and central systolic BP were documented with both treatments. Thus, the fixed combination of zofenopril and HCTZ may have a relevant place in the treatment of high-risk or monotherapy-treated uncontrolled hypertensive patients requiring a more prompt, intensive, and sustained BP reduction, in line with the recommendations of current guidelines.

Fixed-dose combination therapy for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases

BACKGROUND

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide, yet ASCVD risk factor control and secondary prevention rates remain low. A fixed-dose combination of blood pressure- and cholesterol-lowering and antiplatelet treatments into a single pill, or polypill, has been proposed as one strategy to reduce the global burden of ASCVD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of fixed-dose combination therapy on all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal ASCVD events, and adverse events. We also sought to determine the effect of fixed-dose combination therapy on blood pressure, lipids, adherence, discontinuation rates, health-related quality of life, and costs.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our previous searches in September 2016 of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, and DARE, HTA, and HEED. We also searched two clinical trials registers in September 2016. We used no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a fixed-dose combination therapy including at least one blood pressure-lowering and one lipid-lowering component versus usual care, placebo, or an active drug comparator for any treatment duration in adults 18 years old or older, with no restrictions on presence or absence of pre-existing ASCVD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data for this update. We evaluated risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect models when heterogeneity was low (I2 < 50%) and random-effects models when heterogeneity was high (I2 ≥ 50%). We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

In the initial review, we identified nine randomised controlled trials with a total of 7047 participants and four additional trials (n = 2012 participants; mean age range 62 to 63 years; 30% to 37% women) were included in this update. Eight of the 13 trials evaluated the effects of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy in populations without prevalent ASCVD, and the median follow-up ranged from six weeks to 23 months. More recent trials were generally larger with longer follow-up and lower risk of bias. The main risk of bias was related to lack of blinding of participants and personnel, which was inherent to the intervention. Compared with the comparator groups (placebo, usual care, or active drug comparator), the effects of the fixed-dose combination treatment on mortality (FDC = 1.0% versus control = 1.0%, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.89,  I2 = 0%, 5 studies, N = 5300) and fatal and non-fatal ASCVD events (FDC = 4.7% versus control = 3.7%, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66, I2 = 0%, 6 studies, N = 4517) were uncertain (low-quality evidence). The low event rates for these outcomes and indirectness of evidence for comparing fixed-dose combination to usual care versus individual drugs suggest that these results should be viewed with caution. Adverse events were common in both the intervention (32%) and comparator (27%) groups, with participants randomised to fixed-dose combination therapy being 16% (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.25, 11 studies, 6906 participants, moderate-quality evidence) more likely to report an adverse event . The mean differences in systolic blood pressure between the intervention and control arms was -6.34 mmHg (95% CI -9.03 to -3.64, 13 trials, 7638 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The mean differences (95% CI) in total and LDL cholesterol between the intervention and control arms were -0.61 mmol/L (95% CI -0.88 to -0.35, 11 trials, 6565 participants, low-quality evidence) and -0.70 mmol/L (95% CI -0.98 to -0.41, 12 trials, 7153 participants, moderate-quality evidence), respectively. There was a high degree of statistical heterogeneity in comparisons of blood pressure and lipids (I2 ≥ 80% for all) that could not be explained, so these results should be viewed with caution. Fixed-dose combination therapy improved adherence to a multidrug strategy by 44% (26% to 65%) compared with usual care (4 trials, 3835 participants, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of fixed-dose combination therapy on all-cause mortality or ASCVD events are uncertain. A limited number of trials reported these outcomes, and the included trials were primarily designed to observe changes in ASCVD risk factor levels rather than clinical events, which may partially explain the observed differences in risk factors that were not translated into differences in clinical outcomes among the included trials. Fixed-dose combination therapy is associated with modest increases in adverse events compared with placebo, active comparator, or usual care but may be associated with improved adherence to a multidrug regimen. Ongoing, longer-term trials of fixed-dose combination therapy will help demonstrate whether short-term changes in risk factors might be maintained and lead to expected differences in clinical events based on these changes.

Zofenopril or irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension untreated or uncontrolled by previous treatment: a double-blind, randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To compare zofenopril + hydrochlorothiazide (Z + H) vs. irbesartan + hydrochlorothiazide (I + H) efficacy on daytime SBP in elderly (>65 years) patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), untreated or uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy.

METHODS

After a 1-week run-in, 230 ISH patients (office SBP ≥ 140  mmHg and DBP < 90  mmHg + daytime SBP ≥ 135  mmHg and daytime DBP < 85  mmHg) were randomized double-blind to 18-week treatment with Z + H (30 + 12.5  mg) or I + H (150 + 12.5  mg) once daily, in an international, multicenter study. Z and I doses could be doubled after 6 and 12 weeks, and nitrendipine 20  mg added at 12 weeks in nonnormalized patients.

RESULTS

In the full analysis set (n = 216) baseline-adjusted average (95% confidence interval) daytime SBP reductions after 6 weeks (primary study end point) were similar (P = 0.888) with Z + H [7.7 (10.7, 4.6)  mmHg, n = 107] and I + H [7.9 (10.7, 5.0)  mmHg, n = 109]. Daytime SBP reductions were sustained during the study, and larger (P = 0.028) with low-dose Z + H at study end [16.2 (20.0, 12.5)  mmHg vs. 11.2 (14.4, 7.9)  mmHg I + H]. Daytime SBP normalization (<135 mmHg) rate was similar under Z + H and I + H at 6 and 12 weeks, but more common under Z + H at 18 weeks (68.2 vs. 56.0%, P = 0.031). Both drugs equally reduced SBP in the last 6 h of the dosing interval and homogeneously reduced SBP throughout the 24 h. The proportion of patients reporting drug-related adverse events was low (Z + H: 4.4% vs. I + H: 6.0%; P = 0.574).

CONCLUSION

Elderly patients with ISH respond well to both low and high-dose Z or I combined with H.

Derivative spectrophotometric method for simultaneous determination of zofenopril and fluvastatin in mixtures and pharmaceutical dosage forms

Fast, accurate and precise method for the determination of zofenopril and fluvastatin was developed using spectrophotometry of the first (D1), second (D2), and third (D3) order derivatives in two-component mixtures and in pharmaceutical preparations. It was shown, that the developed method allows for the determination of the tested components in a direct manner, despite the apparent interference of the absorption spectra in the UV range. For quantitative determinations, "zero-crossing" method was chosen, appropriate wavelengths for zofenopril were: D1 λ=270.85 nm, D2 λ=286.38 nm, D3 λ=253.90 nm. Fluvastatin was determined at wavelengths: D1 λ=339.03 nm, D2 λ=252.57 nm, D3 λ=258.50 nm, respectively. The method was characterized by high sensitivity and accuracy, for zofenopril LOD was in the range of 0.19-0.87 μg mL(-1), for fluvastatin 0.51-1.18 μg mL(-1), depending on the class of derivative, and for zofenopril and fluvastatin LOQ was 0.57-2.64 μg mL(-1) and 1.56-3.57 μg mL(-1), respectively. The recovery of individual components was within the range of 100±5%. For zofenopril, the linearity range was estimated between 7.65 μg mL(-1) and 22.94 μg mL(-1), and for fluvastatin between 5.60 μg mL(-1) and 28.00 μg mL(-1).

Blood Pressure Response to Zofenopril or Irbesartan Each Combined with Hydrochlorothiazide in High-Risk Hypertensives Uncontrolled by Monotherapy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled, Parallel Group, Noninferiority Trial

In this randomized, double-blind, controlled, parallel group study (ZENITH), 434 essential hypertensives with additional cardiovascular risk factors, uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy, were treated for 18 weeks with zofenopril 30 or 60 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg or irbesartan 150 or 300 mg plus HCTZ. Rate of office blood pressure (BP) response (zofenopril: 68% versus irbesartan: 70%; p = 0.778) and 24-hour BP response (zofenopril: 85% versus irbesartan: 84%; p = 0.781) was similar between the two treatment groups. Cardiac and renal damage was equally reduced by both treatments, whereas the rate of carotid plaque regression was significantly larger with zofenopril. In conclusion, uncontrolled monotherapy treated hypertensives effectively respond to a combination of zofenopril or irbesartan plus a thiazide diuretic, in terms of either BP response or target organ damage progression.