Efficacy and safety of valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination in 11,422 Chinese patients with hypertension: an observational study

Management of Hypertension in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Structured Review

This article reviews available evidence regarding hypertension management in the Asia-Pacific region, focussing on five research questions that deal with specific aspects: blood pressure (BP) control, guideline recommendations, role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors in clinical practice, pharmacological management and real-world adherence to guideline recommendations. A PubMed search identified 2537 articles, of which 94 were considered relevant. Compared with Europeans, Asians have higher systolic/diastolic/mean arterial BP, with a stronger association between BP and stroke. Calcium channel blockers are the most-commonly prescribed monotherapy in Asia, with significant variability between countries in the rates of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and single-pill combination (SPC) use. In clinical practice, ARBs are used more commonly than ACEis, despite the absence of recommendation from guidelines and clinical evidence supporting the use of one class of drug over the other. Ideally, antihypertensive treatment should be tailored to the individual patient, but currently there are limited data on the characteristics of hypertension in Asia-Pacific individuals. Large outcome studies assessing RAAS inhibitor efficacy and safety in multi-national Asian populations are lacking. Among treated patients, BP control rates were ~ 35 to 40%; BP control in Asia-Pacific is suboptimal, and disproportionately so compared with Western nations. Strategies to improve the management of hypertension include wider access/availability of affordable treatments, particularly SPCs (which improve adherence), effective public health screening programs targeting patients to drive health-seeking behaviours, an increase in physician/patient awareness and early implementation of lifestyle changes. A unified Asia-Pacific guideline on hypertension management with pragmatic recommendations, particularly in resource-limited settings, is essential.

Effectiveness of Valsartan's Single-Pill Combination Therapies on Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients: Malaysian Single-Centre Real-World Experience

Background

Uncontrolled hypertension can cause cardiovascular disease and is an important public health issue. Single-pill combination (SPC) therapies possess combined blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect and may improve compliance to treatment. This study assessed the effectiveness of valsartan (Val)-based SPC therapies in achieving BP control in hypertensive patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective study. Data were extracted from the hybrid medical records of patients from the Institut Jantung Negara (IJN), Malaysia. Adults with established diagnosis of hypertension and on prescription of Val-based SPC therapies as part of routine medical care from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018, with ≥ 1 year of follow-up were included. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients achieving therapeutic BP control (BP < 140/90 mmHg). Secondary outcomes included change from baseline (CFB) in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP), and subgroup analysis was based on baseline SBP categories and presence of diabetes.

Results

Study included 409 hypertensive patients. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of the population was 65.1 (10.6) years old, with male predominance (61.6%). Proportion of patients achieving target BP between baseline and follow-up were 57.0% (P < 0.001). Mean CFB in SBP and DBP were recorded as 19.52 mmHg and 7.47 mmHg, respectively. Over half of the patients achieved the target BP in all subgroups categorised by SBP at baseline, except the subgroup of SBP 160 mmHg-179 mmHg. SPC therapies were continued in 97.3% of patients at 1-year follow-up.

Conclusion

Patients using Val-based SPC therapies had significant reduction in BP with good tolerability, with 57% of patients achieving target BP over a prolonged 1-year follow-up period. Uptake of SPC therapy is warranted to improve patient care and outcomes in hypertension.

A Retrospective, Observational, EMR-Based Real-World Evidence Study to Assess the Incidence of Pedal Edema in Essential Hypertensive Patients on Amlodipine or Cilnidipine

Introduction

Calcium channel blockers have pedal edema as one of the confining factors of treatment. A real-world study may help evident reality of the situation in regular Indian clinical practice. The aim of the study is to assess effectiveness and incidence of pedal edema in essential hypertensive patients treated with amlodipine or cilnidipine monotherapy.

Methods

Retrospective EMR data of adult essential hypertensive patients, prescribed amlodipine (n = 800) or cilnidipine (n = 800) as monotherapy, were analyzed. Incidence of pedal edema from baseline visit was analyzed in terms of dose and duration of treatment. The changes in systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline and proportion of patients achieving target BP goals were assessed.

Results

In amlodipine and cilnidipine groups, mean changes in SBP and DBP from baseline to end of the study period were 28.4 and 15.1 mmHg and 24.3 and 13.5 mmHg, respectively (p value <0.05). More than 50% of patients in both groups achieved BP goal at the end of the study (p value 0.266). In amlodipine group, total 23.9% reported pedal edema, while in cilnidipine, 27.6% (p value 0.0863). At the end of the study, 3.5% and 8.2% of patients remain with pedal edema, respectively, in both groups (pvalue <0.005).

Conclusion

Amlodipine demonstrated greater BP reduction at a lower average dose, better efficacy, and tolerability in terms of pedal edema count as a lesser number of patients reported edema at the end of the study and a higher percentage of patients continued the prescribed baseline dosage regimen as compared to cilnidipine. Thus, the study established amlodipine as an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive for Indians.

Efficacy and safety of Tengfu Jiangya tablet combined with valsartan/amlodipine in the treatment of stage 2 hypertension: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The prevalence rate of hypertension in the Chinese population is on the rise, and the control rate of hypertension is low. International guidelines, including the 2018 Chinese Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension, recommend optimized drug selection and combination therapy for patients with stage 2 hypertension and blood pressure ≥ 160/100 mmHg, including valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml). The traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) compound Tengfu Jiangya tablet (TJT; No. Z20110021, Shandong Provincial Food and Drug Administration) is prepared in the medical institution of Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. It is an effective compound preparation of TCM for the treatment of hypertension in the national clinical research base of TCM. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TJT combined with Val/Aml in the treatment of stage 2 hypertension with hyperactivity of liver yang.

Methods

This randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial will be conducted with a total of 288 participants with stage 2 hypertension at seven clinical trial centers. The stratified random method will be used, and the subcenter will be taken as the stratification factor. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) into groups receiving either TJT or placebo three times daily for 28 days, both combined with Val/Aml 80/5 mg. The primary efficacy endpoint is the reduction in the mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and the mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) from baseline to week 4. Adverse events and laboratory test results will be monitored throughout the trial.

Discussion

This is the first placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a Chinese herbal extract combined with Val/Aml in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Our study may help to provide evidence-based recommendations of a complementary preventive measure for stage 2 hypertension.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2000030611. Registered on 8 March 2020

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06089-z.

Effectiveness of Amlodipine on Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients in India: A Real-World, Retrospective Study from Electronic Medical Records

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of amlodipine has been reported in clinical trials in India. However, real-world data on the effectiveness of amlodipine in India is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To provide real-world evidence regarding the effectiveness of amlodipine as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs (AHDs) in Indian patients with essential hypertension.

METHODS

Electronic medical record data of adult patients who were diagnosed with essential hypertension (≥ 140/90 mmHg) and were prescribed amlodipine as monotherapy or add-on therapy were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified based on the number of AHD classes prescribed on initiation of amlodipine. Change in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure from baseline was the primary endpoint. Evaluation of proportion of patients who achieved treatment goals as per 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension guidelines was the secondary endpoint. Readings were obtained before initiating amlodipine and after at least a month of therapy with amlodipine.

RESULTS

Among the 462 included patients, the majority (90.7%) were on amlodipine monotherapy or amlodipine + 1AHD. Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) change in the amlodipine monotherapy group was: SBP (- 12.1 [- 14.9, - 9.3] mmHg) and DBP (- 7.5 [- 8.9, - 6.1] mmHg) and mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine + 1AHD group was: SBP (- 17.8 [- 21.0, - 14.6] mmHg) and DBP (- 9.5 [- 11.0, - 8.0] mmHg) (P < 0.001 for all). SBP and DBP goals were achieved by 31.4% and 42.9% of patients on amlodipine monotherapy and by 38.9% and 51.8% of patients on amlodipine + 1AHD, respectively. Among patients aged ≤ 45 years, mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine monotherapy group was: SBP (- 11.7 [- 16.0, - 7.4] mmHg; P < 0.001) and DBP (- 7.2 [- 9.7, - 4.7] mmHg; P < 0.001) and mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine + 1AHD group was: SBP (- 14.6 [- 21.9, - 7.3] mmHg; P < 0.05) and DBP (- 10.6 [- 14.8, - 6.4] mmHg; P < 0.01). SBP and DBP goals were achieved by 35.4% and 33.8% of patients on amlodipine monotherapy and by 48.0% and 56.0% of patients on amlodipine + 1AHD, respectively. Among patients aged ≥ 65 years, mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine monotherapy group was: SBP (- 13.9 [- 20.2, - 7.6] mmHg; P < 0.01) and DBP (- 8.5 [- 11.4, - 5.7] mmHg; P < 0.001) and mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine + 1AHD group was: SBP (- 22.4 [- - 28.8, - 16.0] mmHg; P < 0.001) and DBP (- 10.8 [- 14.0, - 7.6] mmHg; P < 0.001). SBP and DBP goals were achieved by 25.5% and 13.7% of patients on amlodipine monotherapy and by 29.8% and 14.0% of patients on amlodipine + 1AHD.

CONCLUSION

Amlodipine prescribed as monotherapy or add-on therapy during routine clinical practice significantly reduced BP in ≤ 45- and ≥ 65-year-old Indian patients with mild to moderate hypertension, emphasizing that amlodipine may be a good candidate for BP control in Indian patients with essential hypertension in these age groups.

China STudy of valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination-bAsed long-Term blood pressUre management in HypertenSive patients: a one-year registry (China STATUS III)

Objective: The present observational study evaluated long-term management of hypertension in patients who received treatment with valsartan and amlodipine in a single-pill combination (Val/Aml SPC) in a real-world setting in China (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number ChiCTR1900021324). Methods: This was a prospective, observational, multicenter, real-world registry study wherein patients with hypertension who had already received Val/Aml SPC (80/5 mg) for at least 4 weeks before study enrollment were observed for 1 year. Investigators recorded patient data every 3 months and essentially five times during the 1 year follow-up period. Effectiveness was assessed by the blood pressure (BP) control rate and average duration of treatment at the end of the study. Safety was monitored by the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Results: Overall, 985 patients were enrolled (mean ± standard deviation [SD] age: 60.3 ± 11.5 years); of these, 894 were included in the full analysis set, 758 of whom completed the study. At baseline, BP was controlled (<140/90 mmHg) in 64.3% of patients on Val/Aml SPC for at least 4 weeks before enrollment. Office BP control rates significantly improved from baseline in 74.1% of patients at 1 year (p < .0001). Overall, 575 (87.0%) patients remained on Val/Aml SPC at 1 year (average exposure: 311.5 days). AEs were reported in 23.3% of patients. The majority of AEs were mild to moderate, and 0.6% of patients discontinued Val/Aml SPC because of SAEs. Conclusion: This study provides evidence that Val/Aml SPC effectively reduced BP over the long term among Chinese hypertensive patients, with a good adherence and tolerability profile, and that most hypertensive patients may benefit from this combination.

Efficacy of amlodipine besylate and Valsartan for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension

BACKGROUND

Clinical researchers found that Amlodipine besylate and Valsartan (ABVS) can effectively treat mild to moderate hypertension (MMH). However, no study has systematically investigated its efficacy and safety for patients with MMH. Thus, present study will systematically assess the efficacy and safety of ABVS for patients with MMH.

METHODS

MEDICINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Ovid, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure will be searched for literatures related to the topic from inception to the present without language limitations. All randomized controlled trials that assess the efficacy and safety of ABVS for patients with MMH will be considered for inclusion. Two researchers will independently select study, extract data, and assess risk of bias for all eligible studies.

RESULTS

The primary outcome includes the change of seated diastolic blood pressure. The secondary outcomes consist of the change of seated systolic blood pressure, health-related quality of life, and the tolerability.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study will summarize the latest evidence on ABVS for the treatment of MMH.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study does not need ethical approval, because it will not use individual data. The results of this study are expected to be published at peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019133123.

Efficacy and effectiveness of valsartan/amlodipine and valsartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in hypertension: randomized controlled versus observational studies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to compare the results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWE) studies of valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml) and valsartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (Val/Aml/HCTZ) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (>140/90 mmHg).

METHODS

Data was pooled from 15 RCTs (N = 5542) and 8 RWE studies (N = 1397) for Val/Aml; and 2 RCTs (N = 804) and 5 RWE studies (N = 9380) for Val/Aml/HCTZ. Patients who received Val/Aml (80/5, 160/5, 160/10, 320/5, or 320/10 mg), Val/Aml/HCTZ (160/5/12.5, 160/5/25, 160/10/12.5, 160/10/25, or 320/10/25 mg) or placebo were considered for this analysis. Only patients with both baseline and follow-up assessment within 60-90 days after baseline had been included in the analysis. Patients with missing values were excluded from the analysis. Using fitted linear mixed-effects model and random factors, treatment interactions and study design with mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP), diastolic BP (msDBP) and pulse pressure (msPP) reductions from baseline to Week 8-12 of treatment were compared.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics and patient characteristics were comparable between RCT and RWE datasets and within Val/Aml and Val/Aml/HCTZ treatment groups. In both RCT and RWE studies, least-squares mean (LSM) reduction in msSBP/msDBP and msPP from baseline were significant (p < .05) across all dosages. The efficacy of Val/Aml in RCTs was statistically significantly greater than in RWE studies for msSBP/msDBP (-23.1/-13.8 vs. -17.9/-9.1 mmHg) but the difference was non-significant for msPP (-8.6 vs. -9.3 mmHg; p = .77). For Val/Aml/HCTZ, no direct comparison was available but a similar trend was observed. The difference observed for msSBP and msDBP may be due to routine practice setting, larger populations may have more confounders and different behaviors towards treatment adherence.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate that the efficacy of Val/Aml and Val/Aml/HCTZ in RCTs was more pronounced compared with their effectiveness in RWE studies in different ethnic populations although the overall benefit was not different.

Blood pressure response to metoprolol and chlorthalidone in European and African Americans with hypertension

Despite the availability of many antihypertensive drug classes, half of patients with hypertension have uncontrolled blood pressure (BP). The authors sought to assess the effect of age on BP response in European American and African American patients with hypertension. Clinic BP from the PEAR2 (Pharmacogenomics Evaluation of Antihypertensive Responses 2) study was used to estimate BP responses from baseline following sequential treatment with metoprolol 100 mg twice daily and chlorthalidone 25 mg daily for 8 to 9 weeks each, with a minimum 4-week washout between treatments. BP responses to both drugs were compared in 159 European Americans and 119 African Americans by age with adjustment for baseline BP and sex. European Americans younger than 50 years responded better to metoprolol than chlorthalidone (diastolic BP: -9.6 ± 8.0 vs -5.9 ± 6.8 mm Hg, adjusted P = .003), whereas patients 50 years and older responded better to chlorthalidone than metoprolol (systolic BP: -18.7 ± 13.8 vs -13.6 ± 14.8 mm Hg, adjusted P = .008). African Americans younger than 50 years responded similarly to both drugs, whereas those 50 years and older responded better to chlorthalidone than metoprolol (-17.0 ± 13.2/-9.6 ± 7.5 vs -7.0 ± 18.6/-6.7 ± 9.3 mm Hg, adjusted P<.0001/.008). Therefore, age should be considered when selecting antihypertensive therapy in European and African American populations with hypertension.

Effectiveness and safety of valsartan/amlodipine in hypertensive patients with stroke: China Status II subanalysis

High blood pressure (BP) is a major risk factor associated with stroke in China. This is a subanalysis of patients from the China Status II study, aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml) single-pill combination (SPC) in hypertensive patients with different stroke subtypes (hemorrhagic, ischemic, or mixed).China Status II was a multicenter, postmarketing, prospective observational study in hypertensive patients uncontrolled on monotherapy. The study was an 8-week open-label treatment period with 2 4-week follow-ups. Change in BP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8, BP control rate, and response rate at weeks 4 and 8, and safety of 8-week treatment with Val/Aml (80/5 mg) were assessed.A total of 565 hypertensive patients with different types of stroke were analyzed in this China Status II substudy. Significant mean sitting systolic/diastolic BP (MSSBP/MSDBP) reductions from baseline to week 8 were observed across all stroke subtypes (P < .0001). At week 8, percentages of patients achieving MSSBP response (≥20 mm Hg reduction from baseline) were 76.3%, 74.4%, and 85.7%, MSDBP response (≥10 mm Hg reduction from baseline) were 67.8%, 65.9%, and 64.3%, and BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) were 74.6%, 80.5%, and 92.9%, in the hemorrhagic, ischemic, and mixed stroke subgroups, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were reported in 5 patients (1%) and 1 patient (0.2%), respectively, in the ischemic stroke subgroup, while no AEs were reported in hemorrhagic and mixed stroke subgroups.Val/Aml SPC was effective in hypertensive patients with different stroke subtypes and was well tolerated.

Formulations of Amlodipine: A Review

Amlodipine (AD) is a calcium channel blocker that is mainly used in the treatment of hypertension and angina. However, latest findings have revealed that its efficacy is not only limited to the treatment of cardiovascular diseases as it has shown to possess antioxidant activity and plays an important role in apoptosis. Therefore, it is also employed in the treatment of cerebrovascular stroke, neurodegenerative diseases, leukemia, breast cancer, and so forth either alone or in combination with other drugs. AD is a photosensitive drug and requires protection from light. A number of workers have tried to formulate various conventional and nonconventional dosage forms of AD. This review highlights all the formulations that have been developed to achieve maximum stability with the desired therapeutic action for the delivery of AD such as fast dissolving tablets, floating tablets, layered tablets, single-pill combinations, capsules, oral and transdermal films, suspensions, emulsions, mucoadhesive microspheres, gels, transdermal patches, and liposomal formulations.

Effectiveness of Valsartan/Amlodipine Single-pill Combination in Hypertensive Patients With Excess Body Weight: Subanalysis of China Status II

Obesity is a major global health concern and is associated with hypertension. However, there is a lack of studies evaluating the effectiveness of valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination in Chinese hypertensive patients with excess body weight uncontrolled by monotherapy. To evaluate this effectiveness and its association with obese categories, we performed a prespecified subanalysis and a post hoc analysis of patients from China status II study. In this subanalysis, 11,289 and 11,182 patients stratified by body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC), respectively, were included. Significant mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) reductions from baseline were observed at week 8 across all BMI and WC subgroups (P < 0.001). The percentages of patients achieving BP control were 65.2%, 62.8%, and 64.5% (men 64.5% and women 64.4%) in the overweight, obesity, and abdominal obesity subgroups, respectively. The positive association between BP control and obese categories could only be found in subgroups stratified by BMI other than WC. Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination in Chinese hypertensive patients with excess body weight uncontrolled by monotherapy, and its effectiveness was better associated with BMI than WC.

To compare anti-albumin urea effects of valsartan alone with combination of valsartan and amlodipine in patients of chronic kidney disease

Objective:

To compare anti-albumin urea effects of Valsartan alone with combination of Valsartan and Amlodipine in patients of chronic kidney disease.

Methods:

This randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Department of Medicine, Combined Military Hospital Bahawalpur, from April 2014 to 30 September 2014. 140 patients of chronic kidney disease with baseline blood pressure more than 140/90mm Hg having raised urinary albumin: creatinine ratio (UACR). UACR more than 3.5 mg/mmol was considered abnormal. Group-A was treated with Valsartan 80mg daily and Group-B was treated with valsartan 80 and amlodipine 10mg once a day. We did not change the dose of drugs and check spot UACR at base line and after six months with therapy and compare improvement in UACR between Group-A and B. Data was analyzed by statistical software packages (SPSS 16.0).

Results:

In both the groups, BP was significantly lower than the respective value. Mean decrease in spot UACR in Group-A was 3.18±2.64 mg/mmol and UACR in Group-B mean decrease in UACR was 13.01±20.11 mg/mmol. P value was< 0.05.

Conclusion:

The combination therapy of valsartan with amlodipine significantly lowers the albuminuria in chronic Kidney disease and reduce the progression of disease as compared to Valsartan alone therapy.

Gender difference in the response to valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination in essential hypertension (China Status II): An observational study

BACKGROUND

The China STATUS II is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, post-marketing, observational study including Chinese adults (aged ⩾ 18 years) with essential hypertension who were prescribed once-daily valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml 80/5 mg) single-pill combination. In order to examine gender differences in treatment response to Val/Aml, we further analysed data from the China STATUS II study.

METHODS

A total of 11,312 patients (6456 (57%) men and 4856 (43%) women) received the Val/Aml treatment for 8 weeks. After the treatment, we compared the proportion of patients not achieving the target systolic blood pressure (SBP: < 140 mm Hg) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP: < 90 mm Hg) in different age groups (by Fisher exact probability test) and estimated the changes in blood pressure (BP) according to age and gender, using a mixed model.

RESULTS

At enrolment, mean SBP was higher in the female versus the male patients (160.0 ± 12.71 versus 159.3 ± 12.31 mm Hg; p = 0.003), whereas the mean DBP was higher in the male versus the female patients (96.4 ± 10.65 versus 94.5 ± 10.72 mm Hg; p < 0.001). The overall proportion of women not achieving the target BP was less than that of men (57.41% versus 59.59%; p < 0.05) at 4 weeks and (22.22% versus 23.78%; p < 0.05) at 8 weeks after the Val/Aml treatment. Among both men and women, the proportion of patients not achieving the target SBP increased with age; however, the proportion not achieving the target DBP decreased with age. The mixed-model analysis showed that the changes in SBP were closely related to gender, indicating that the SBP-lowering effect after Val/Aml treatment might be better in women. In addition, the changes in DBP were closely related to age.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender might be a factor for consideration in the decision-making process of individualised antihypertensive therapy, in the future.

In vitro and in vivo postmarketing surveillance of valsartan, alone or in combination with amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide, among Palestinian hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the general quality of the most prescribed products of valsartan (VL; alone or in combination) and to evaluate their efficacy and safety among Palestinian population through in vivo postmarketing surveillance.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The first part was pharmacopeial quality control assay, including dissolution, disintegration, friability, and weight uniformity for VL. The second part was a 3-month cardiology clinics, observational, postmarketing surveillance pilot study that included 103 hypertensive patients who were prescribed 80 mg or 160 mg of VL as monotherapy or combination therapy. The end points were reduction in blood pressure (BP) and the rate of incidence of adverse effects (AEs) at weeks 4 and 8.

RESULTS

According to our quality control tests, all VL products showed high-quality standards according to the international guidelines. A reduction in BP was observed at weeks 4 and 8, and no significant difference was observed between the strengths of 80 mg and 160 mg. Higher BP reduction was observed after the use of combination therapy. Moreover, VL was well tolerated; most of the AEs were of mild-to-moderate intensity. In general, the most frequently reported AEs included headache (17.5%), dizziness (11.75%), and weakness (11.7%). No serious AEs or death cases were reported during the study period.

CONCLUSION

High quality of VL tablet products was used; hence, the observed efficacy and safety results should be related to patient's factors and not due to any product defects or substandard quality. Moreover, VL is an effective treatment for essential hypertension.

Real-world effectiveness of amlodipine/valsartan and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in high-risk patients and other subgroups

Background

The clinical EXCITE (EXperienCe of amlodIpine and valsarTan in hypErtension) study reported clinically relevant blood pressure (BP) reductions across all doses of amlodipine/valsartan (Aml/Val) and Aml/Val/hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) single-pill combinations. The study prospectively observed a multiethnic population of hypertensive patients for 26 weeks who were treated according to routine clinical practice. Here, we present the results in high-risk subgroups including the elderly, obese patients, and patients with diabetes or isolated systolic hypertension. In addition, we present a post hoc analysis as per prior antihypertensive monotherapy and dual therapy.

Methods

Patients prescribed Aml/Val or Aml/Val/HCT were assessed in this 26±8 week, noninterventional, multicenter study across 13 countries in the Middle East and Asia. Changes in mean sitting systolic BP, mean sitting diastolic BP, and overall safety were assessed.

Results

Of a total of 9,794 patients analyzed, 8,603 and 1,191 patients were prescribed Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT, respectively. Among these, 15.5% were elderly, 32.5% were obese, 31.3% had diabetes, and 9.8% had isolated systolic hypertension. Both Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT single-pill combinations, respectively, were associated with clinically relevant and significant mean sitting systolic/diastolic BP reductions across all subgroups: elderly patients (−32.2/−14.3 mmHg and −38.5/−16.5 mmHg), obese patients (−32.2/−17.9 mmHg and −38.5/−18.4 mmHg), diabetic patients (−30.3/−16.1 mmHg and −34.4/−16.6 mmHg), and patients with isolated systolic hypertension (−25.5/−4.1 mmHg and −30.2/−5.9 mmHg). Incremental BP reductions with Aml/Val or Aml/Val/HCT single-pill combinations were also observed in patients receiving prior monotherapy or dual therapy for hypertension. Overall, both Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT were generally well tolerated.

Conclusion

This large, multiethnic study supports the evidence that Aml/Val and Aml/Val/ HCT single-pill combinations are effective in diverse and clinically important subgroups of patients with hypertension.