Comparison of benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide in high-risk patients with hypertension and coronary artery disease

Mechanism Actions of Coniferyl Alcohol in Improving Cardiac Dysfunction in Renovascular Hypertension Studied by Experimental Verification and Network Pharmacology

Renovascular hypertension (RH), a secondary hypertension, can significantly impact heart health, resulting in heart damage and dysfunction, thereby elevating the risk of cardiovascular diseases. Coniferol (CA), which has vascular relaxation properties, is expected to be able to treat hypertension-related diseases. However, its potential effects on cardiac function after RH remain unclear. In this study, in combination with network pharmacology, the antihypertensive and cardioprotective effects of CA in a two-kidney, one-clip (2K1C) mice model and its ability to mitigate angiotensin II (Ang II)-induced hypertrophy in H9C2 cells were investigated. The findings revealed that CA effectively reduced blood pressure, myocardial tissue damage, and inflammation after RH. The possible targets of CA for RH treatment were screened by network pharmacology. The interleukin-17 (IL-17) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) signaling pathways were identified using a Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) enrichment analysis. The inflammatory response was identified using a Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis. Western blot analysis confirmed that CA reduced the expression of IL-17, matrix metallopeptidase 9 (MMP9), cyclooxygenase 2 (COX2), and TNF α in heart tissues and the H9C2 cells. In summary, CA inhibited cardiac inflammation and fibrohypertrophy following RH. This effect was closely linked to the expression of MMP9/COX2/TNF α/IL-17. This study sheds light on the therapeutic potential of CA for treating RH-induced myocardial hypertrophy and provides insights into its underlying mechanisms, positioning CA as a promising candidate for future drug development.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of stroke and myocardial infarction prevention in hypertensive patients: Markov model based on the ACCOMPLISH trial

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the pharmacoeconomics of amlodipine combined with benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide combined with benazepril in the treatment of hypertension using a Markov model to provide an evidence-based reference for clinical drug use.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we constructed two types of Markov model using data from the ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) trial to dynamically simulate the development of hypertension. The models were subjected to rollback analysis and cohort analysis to obtain the cost and effectiveness of the two drug regimens in preventing stroke and myocardial infarction in hypertensive patients. We conducted sensitivity analysis to determine the stability of the results.

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness of amlodipine combined with benazepril was 66,196.97 RMB with 6.59 QALYs and that of hydrochlorothiazide combined with benazepril was 74,588.50 RMB with 6.46 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of hydrochlorothiazide + benazepril was -64,550.23 compared with amlodipine + benazepril. The amlodipine + benazepril regimen was therefore more cost-effective than hydrochlorothiazide combined with benazepril. The sensitivity analysis results showed that the model was robust.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the hydrochlorothiazide + benazepril treatment regimen, the amlodipine + benazepril regimen showed greater economic benefits.

Comparative peripheral edema for dihydropyridines calcium channel blockers treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHPCCBs) are widely used to treat hypertension and chronic coronary artery disease. One common adverse effect of DHPCCBs is peripheral edema, particularly of the lower limbs. The side effect could lead to dose reduction or discontinuation of the medication. The combination of DHPCCBs and renin-angiotensin system blockers has shown to reduce the risk of DHPCCBs-associated peripheral edema compared with DHPCCBs monotherapy. We performed the current systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the rate of peripheral edema with DHPCCBs as a class and with individual DHPCCBs and the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. The effects of renin-angiotensin system blockers on DHPCCBs network meta-analysis were created to analyze the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. A total of 3312 publications were identified and 71 studies with 56,283 patients were included. Nifedipine ranked highest in inducing peripheral edema (SUCRA 81.8%) and lacidipine (SUCRA 12.8%) ranked the least. All DHPCCBs except lacidipine resulted in higher relative risk (RR) of peripheral edema compared with placebo. Nifedipine plus angiotensin receptor blocker (SUCRA: 92.3%) did not mitigate peripheral edema and amlodipine plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (SUCRA: 16%) reduced peripheral edema the most. Nifedipine ranked the highest and lacidipine ranked the lowest amongst DHPCCBs for developing peripheral edema when used for cardiovascular indications. The second or higher generation of DHPCCBs combination with ACEIs or ARBs or diuretics lowered the chance of peripheral edema development compared to single DHPCCB treatment.

Cardiovascular Benefits of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition Plus Calcium Channel Blockade in Patients Achieving Tight Blood Pressure Control and With Resistant Hypertension

BACKGROUND

The 2017 hypertension guidelines lowered systolic blood pressure (BP) goals to <130 mm Hg and redefined resistant hypertension. We investigated if these changes alter the cardiovascular benefits demonstrated by combining a calcium channel blocker (CCB), rather than hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI).

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis of the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension trial (n = 11,506), we compared the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitation after sudden cardiac death, and coronary revascularization) between the 2 combination-treatment limbs in patients achieving a systolic BP ≤130 mm Hg and those with "apparent resistant hypertension" (prescribed ≥4 antihypertensive medications).

RESULTS

Among study patients, 5,221 (45.4%) achieved a systolic BP ≤130 mm Hg. There were fewer primary endpoints in the amlodipine/benazepril (9.2%) vs. the HCTZ/benazepril (10.9%) limb (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.99). There were also fewer primary endpoints in the amlodipine/benazepril (12.8%) vs. the HCTZ/benazepril (15.2%) limb (n = 4,451, 38.7%) among patients with apparent resistant hypertension (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.70-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy adding a CCB, rather than HCTZ, to an ACEI was more effective in preventing composite cardiovascular events even in hypertensive patients achieving aggressive systolic BP targets as well as in those with apparent resistant hypertension. Our findings add support that most patients, including those following contemporary clinical guidelines, will benefit from this combination.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

Trial Number NCT00170950.

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

OBJECTIVE

In the four SMILE (Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-Term Evaluation) studies, early administration of zofenopril in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) showed beneficial effects as compared to placebo and other angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs). This study investigated whether the concomitant administration of the dihydropyridine calcium channel-blocker amlodipine may improve zofenopril efficacy to prevent cardiovascular events in post-AMI patients.

METHODS

This was a post-hoc analysis of pooled individual patient data from the four large randomized SMILE studies. The primary endpoint was the 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes.

RESULTS

In total, 3488 patients were considered, 303 (8.7%) treated with concomitant amlodipine. Baseline systolic blood pressure and prevalence of metabolic syndrome were higher in amlodipine treated patients. The 1-year occurrence of major cardiovascular outcomes was significantly reduced in patients receiving concomitant treatment with amlodipine (hazard ratio, HR = 0.66; and 95% confidence interval, CI = 0.44-0.98; p = .039). After accounting for treatment with amlodipine, the risk of cardiovascular events was significantly reduced with zofenopril compared to placebo (HR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.63-0.97; p = .026]. Among ACEI-treated patients, the zofenopril plus amlodipine combination reduced the risk of cardiovascular events by 38%, compared to the combination of other ACEIs plus amlodipine [HR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.61-0.94); p = .013). The prognostic benefit of concomitant treatment with zofenopril plus amlodipine was independent from blood pressure lowering.

CONCLUSIONS

Zofenopril had a positive impact on prognosis in post-AMI patients, compared to other ACEIs. Concomitant administration of amlodipine may help to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events at 1 year.

[A fixed-dose lisinopril+amlodipine+rosuvastatin combination: prospects for its use in patients with hypertension and concomitant dyslipidemia]

In Russia, target blood pressure (BP) levels are achieved in only 14.4% of men and in 30.9% of women. The need for combination therapy of hypertension is as high as 70.7%. There are well-known benefits of combined antihypertensive therapy allowing for higher efficiency and better tolerability. One of the current combinations is a combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a calcium antagonist, which have pronounced protective activity and metabolic neutrality. Fixed-dose combinations have substantial advantages over free ones, contributing to improving patient compliance with the used treatment regimen. Dyslipidemia is present in 60.7% of the hypertensive patients. Nonetheless, only 9.7% of Russian patients with coronary heart disease take statins and control of lipid levels remains very poor. The review discusses whether the use of the triple combination lisinopril + amlodipine + rosuvastatin is reasonable from the standpoint of evidence-based medicine. There are literature data suggesting the high value of this fixed-dose combination in the context of organ protection and the reduced risk of cardiovascular events.

Prior Medications and the Cardiovascular Benefits From Combination Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition Plus Calcium Channel Blockade Among High-Risk Hypertensive Patients

Background

The ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) trial demonstrated that combination therapy using amlodipine, rather than hydrochlorothiazide, in conjunction with benazepril provided greater cardiovascular risk reduction among high‐risk hypertensive patients. Few trials have evaluated the effect of prior antihypertensive therapy used among participants on the study outcomes.

Methods and Results

In a post hoc observational analysis, we examined the characteristics of the drug regimens taken before trial enrollment in the context of the primary composite outcome (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitation after sudden cardiac death, and coronary revascularization). In the “primary subgroup” (n=4475), patients previously taking any renin‐angiotensin system blockade plus either a diuretic or a calcium channel blocker alone or as part of their antihypertensive regimen, there were 206 of 2193 (9.4%) versus 281 of 2282 (12.3%) primary composite events among those randomized to combination therapy involving amlodipine versus hydrochlorothiazide, respectively (adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.62–0.89; P=0.0015). All other participants (n=6975) previously taking any antihypertensive regimen not included in the primary subgroup also benefited from randomization to amlodipine plus benazepril (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–0.98; P=0.024). Outcomes among most other subgroups, including patients previously taking lipid‐lowering medications or dichotomized by prior blood pressure control status, showed similar results.

Conclusions

When combined with an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor, amlodipine provides cardiovascular risk reduction superior to hydrochlorothiazide, largely regardless of prior medication use. These findings add further support for the initial use of this combination regimen among high‐risk hypertensive patients.

Monotherapy with amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide in patients with mild to moderate hypertension: Comparison of their efficacy and effects on electrolytes

Background

Amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) are commonly prescribed in Nigeria either as a monotherapy or in combination with other drugs. The present study was designed to investigate the antihypertensive efficacy of monotherapy with amlodipine or HCTZ and their effects on electrolyte profile in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

Methods

A single-blind randomized clinical study was used; fifty patients newly diagnosed with mild to moderate hypertension (aged 33 to 60 years) were recruited and divided into two groups: amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide each comprising of 25 subjects. The subjects received 5mg of amlodipine or 25mg of hydrochlorothiazide in their respective group once daily for 4 weeks. Blood pressure, serum and urine electrolytes were measured at baseline and weekly throughout the experiment.

Results

At the end of follow up, amlodipine reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure significantly more (p<0.001) than HCTZ. At the end of follow up, blood pressure was reduced to normal in 80% of the subjects in amlodipine group compared to 50% in HCTZ. Amlodipine had no significant effect on electrolyte profile of subjects unlike HCTZ which significantly changed both their serum and urine electrolytes.

Conclusions

Monotherapy with amlodipine was more effective than HCTZ in black patients with mild to moderate hypertension and in addition maintained electrolyte balance.

Short-Term Cardioprotective Effects of the Original Perindopril/Amlodipine Fixed-Dose Combination in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Results of the PAPA-CAD Study

INTRODUCTION

Long-term therapy with a combination of perindopril and amlodipine has shown a beneficial effect on the morbidity and mortality of patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) and hypertension. On the basis of the antiproliferative, antithrombotic, and antiatherogenic effects of the active substances, we initiated data collection to examine the short-term cardioprotective effect of perindopril/amlodipine fixed-dose combination therapy in this patient group. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of perindopril/amlodipine fixed-dose combination on the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class and exercise capacity of patients with SCAD in everyday medical practice.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, observational, non-interventional, open-label, 6-month clinical study. Patients attended four visits (inclusion, and at months 1, 3, and 6), and clinical information was collected [risk factors, comorbidities, blood pressure (BP), and heart rate measured at the physician's office, drug treatment, CCS class, adverse events, optional laboratory blood tests, and exercise electrocardiography (ECG)].

RESULTS

This study included 3472 patients. The mean office systolic BP/diastolic BP decreased from 157.5 ± 12.9/92.9 ± 8.6 to 130.3 ± 8.3/79.8 ± 6.1 mmHg (P < 0.0001). During the 6-month study period, a favorable change in CCS grading was observed following treatment with fixed-dose combination perindopril/amlodipine: CCS I, from 42.6% to 71.4%; CCS II, from 46.4% to 26.5%; CCS III, from 10.2% to 2.0%; and CCS IV, from 0.8% to 0.1% (all P < 0.0001). In those patients who had exercise ECG at inclusion and the end of month 6 (n = 197) the mean performance, measured in watts, increased from 88.9 ± 37.9 to 110.5 ± 38.4 W (+24.4%; P < 0.001) and from 7.86 ± 2.95 to 8.78 ± 2.92 metabolic equivalent of task (MET) (+11.7%; P < 0.001). No serious adverse events were reported and the treatment was found to have a positive impact on patients' metabolic profiles.

CONCLUSION

The fixed-dose combination of perindopril and amlodipine improved the CCS class and exercise capacity in patients with SCAD after 6 months of treatment. The fixed-dose combination of perindopril and amlodipine can have favorable effects on the cardiovascular system, not only by its BP-lowering effect and its effect on vascular resistance but also through its direct cardiovascular protective effects.

FUNDING

Egis Pharmaceuticals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

21938-1/2011-EKU (698/PI/11.).

New Hypertension Guidelines: Progression or a Step Backwards in Hypertension?

In the last years, many hypertension guidelines have been published as new or revised versions. They follow the general trend that only clinical evidence is relevant for guidelines. Expert opinion is downplayed. At present, guidelines from three major organizations have been produced: by the European Society of Hypertension, the International Society/American Society of Hypertension, and the US Joint National Committee. We discuss eight versions of these guidelines in this review. All of these include statements on blood pressure goals or treatment algorithms for patients with high blood pressure. The variability of practical tips is great, and the recommendations, which mainly rely on evidence-based medical information, show slight differences that have resulted in some confusion with specialists and also practitioners. In the current review, the changes in the guidelines in comparison to previous guidelines are discussed, and reasons for different recommendations are explained. The hope is to reduce confusion.

Benefits and risks of antihypertensive medications in the elderly

Hypertension is highly prevalent in older age and accounts for a large proportion of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality worldwide. Isolated systolic hypertension is more common in the elderly than younger adults and associated with poor outcomes such as cerebrovascular disease and acute coronary events. International guidelines are inconsistent in providing recommendations on optimal blood pressure targets in hypertensive elderly patients as a result of the limited evidence in this population. Evidence from clinical trials supports the use of antihypertensive drugs in hypertensive elderly patients due to benefits in reducing CV disease and mortality. However, elderly participants in these trials may not be typical of elderly patients seen in routine clinical practice, and the potential risks associated with use of antihypertensive drugs in the elderly are not as well studied as younger participants. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to provide a comprehensive summary of the benefits and risks of the use of antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients (aged ≥65 years), highlighting landmark clinical trials and observational studies. We will focus on specific outcomes relating to the benefits and risks of these medications in hypertensive elderly patients, such as CV disease, cognitive decline, dementia, orthostatic hypotension, falls, fractures, cancer and diabetes, in order to provide an update of the most relevant and current evidence to help inform clinical decision-making.

Predictors and outcomes of resistant hypertension among patients with coronary artery disease and hypertension

OBJECTIVE

Resistant hypertension (res-HTN) is a challenging problem, but little is known of res-HTN in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). In this post-hoc INternational VErapamil SR-Trandolapril STudy (INVEST) analysis, we assessed prevalence, predictors, and impact on outcomes of res-HTN in CAD patients with hypertension.

METHODS

Participants (n=17190) were divided into three groups according to achieved blood pressure (BP): controlled (BP <140/90 mmHg on three or fewer drugs); uncontrolled (BP ≥ 40/90 mmHg on two or fewer drugs); or resistant (BP ≥ 40/90 mmHg on three drugs or any patient on at least four drugs).

RESULTS

The prevalence of res-HTN was 38%: significant predictors of res-HTN included heart failure [odds ratio (OR) 1.73], diabetes (OR 1.63), Black race (OR 1.50), and US residence (OR 1.50). Compared with controlled HTN, res-HTN had multivariate-adjusted association with higher risk of adverse outcomes {first occurrence of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke [hazard ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.43], and individual outcomes of all-cause death (hazard ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.13-1.48), cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.21-1.78), and nonfatal stroke (hazard ratio 1.61, 95% CI 1.17-2.22), but not nonfatal myocardial infarction (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.72-1.34)}. Adverse outcomes, except nonfatal stroke, did not differ in patients with res-HTN compared to uncontrolled HTN.

CONCLUSIONS

Res-HTN is common in patients with CAD and hypertension, associated with poor prognosis, and linked with a number of conditions. Emphasis should be placed on recognizing those at risk for res-HTN and future studies should examine whether more aggressive treatment of res-HTN improves outcomes.