Irbesartan/amlodipine: a review of its use in adult patients with essential hypertension not adequately controlled with monotherapy

The Efficacy and Tolerability of Irbesartan/Amlodipine Combination Therapy in Patients With Essential Hypertension Whose Blood Pressure Were not Controlled by Irbesartan Monotherapy

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan (IRB) and amlodipine (AML) combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled by IRB monotherapy.

METHODS

Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies were conducted in Korea (the I-DUO 301 study and the I-DUO 302 study). After a 4-week run-in period with either 150 mg IRB (I-DUO 301 study) or 300 mg IRB (I-DUO 302 study), patients with uncontrolled BP (ie, mean sitting systolic BP [MSSBP] ≥140 mmHg to <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP <110 mmHg) were randomized to the placebo, AML 5 mg, or AML 10 mg group. A total of 428 participants were enrolled in the 2 I-DUO studies. In the I-DUO 301 study, 271 participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, or IRB 150 mg/placebo. In the I-DUO 302 study, 157 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive IRB/AML 300/5 mg or IRB 300 mg/placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in MSSBP from baseline to week 8. Tolerability was assessed according to the development of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinically significant changes in physical examination, laboratory tests, pulse, and 12-lead electrocardiography.

FINDINGS

In I-DUO 301, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -14.78 (12.35) mmHg, -21.47 (12.78) mmHg, and -8.61 (12.19) mmHg in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In I-DUO 302, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -13.30 (12.47) mmHg and -7.19 (15.37) mmHg in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In both studies, all combination groups showed a significantly higher reduction in MSSBP than the IRB monotherapy groups (P < 0.001 for both). TEAEs occurred in 10.00%, 10.99%, and 12.22% of participants in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 301 and in 6.33% and 10.67% of participants in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 302, with no significant between-group differences. Overall, there was one serious adverse event throughout I-DUO study.

IMPLICATIONS

The combination of IRB and AML has superior antihypertensive effects compared with IRB alone over an 8-week treatment period, with placebo-like tolerability.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05476354 (I-DUO 301), NCT05475665 (I-DUO 302).

Initial treatment with a single pill containing quadruple combination of quarter doses of blood pressure medicines versus standard dose monotherapy in patients with hypertension (QUARTET): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment inertia is a recognised barrier to blood pressure control, and simpler, more effective treatment strategies are needed. We hypothesised that a hypertension management strategy starting with a single pill containing ultra-low-dose quadruple combination therapy would be more effective than a strategy of starting with monotherapy.

METHODS

QUARTET was a multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised, phase 3 trial among Australian adults (≥18 years) with hypertension, who were untreated or receiving monotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned to either treatment, that started with the quadpill (containing irbesartan at 37·5 mg, amlodipine at 1·25 mg, indapamide at 0·625 mg, and bisoprolol at 2·5 mg) or an indistinguishable monotherapy control (irbesartan 150 mg). If blood pressure was not at target, additional medications could be added in both groups, starting with amlodipine at 5 mg. Participants were randomly assigned using an online central randomisation service. There was a 1:1 allocation, stratified by site. Allocation was masked to all participants and study team members (including investigators and those assessing outcomes) except the manufacturer of the investigational product and one unmasked statistician. The primary outcome was difference in unattended office systolic blood pressure at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure control (standard office blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg), safety, and tolerability. A subgroup continued randomly assigned allocation to 12 months to assess long-term effects. Analyses were per intention to treat. This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001144404, and is now complete.

FINDINGS

From June 8, 2017, to Aug 31, 2020, 591 participants were recruited, with 743 assessed for eligibility, 152 ineligible or declined, 300 participants randomly assigned to intervention of initial quadpill treatment, and 291 to control of initial standard dose monotherapy treatment. The mean age of the 591 participants was 59 years (SD 12); 356 (60%) were male and 235 (40%) were female; 483 (82%) were White, 70 (12%) were Asian, and 38 (6%) reported as other ethnicity; and baseline mean unattended office blood pressure was 141 mm Hg (SD 13)/85 mm Hg (SD 10). By 12 weeks, 44 (15%) of 300 participants had additional blood pressure medications in the intervention group compared with 115 (40%) of 291 participants in the control group. Systolic blood pressure was lower by 6·9 mm Hg (95% CI 4·9-8·9; p<0·0001) and blood pressure control rates were higher in the intervention group (76%) versus control group (58%; relative risk [RR] 1·30, 95% CI 1·15-1·47; p<0·0001). There was no difference in adverse event-related treatment withdrawals at 12 weeks (intervention 4·0% vs control 2·4%; p=0·27). Among the 417 patients who continued, uptitration occurred more frequently among control participants than intervention participants (p<0·0001). However, at 52 weeks mean unattended systolic blood pressure remained lower by 7·7 mm Hg (95% CI 5·2-10·3) and blood pressure control rates higher in the intervention group (81%) versus control group (62%; RR 1·32, 95% CI 1·16-1·50). In all randomly assigned participants up to 12 weeks, there were seven (3%) serious adverse events in the intervention group and three (1%) serious adverse events in the control group.

INTERPRETATION

A strategy with early treatment of a fixed-dose quadruple quarter-dose combination achieved and maintained greater blood pressure lowering compared with the common strategy of starting monotherapy. This trial demonstrated the efficacy, tolerability, and simplicity of a quadpill-based strategy.

FUNDING

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.

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.